Colin Watson writes ("Re: /usr/lib to /lib symlinks (absolute?)"):
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:45:14AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > I think it’s a bad idea to use symbolic links rather than bind mounts
> > for this kind of stuff, but I’m pretty sure we would bre
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:45:14AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 18 juillet 2014 à 09:33 +0100, Colin Watson a écrit :
> > It's still possible to use /usr as a separate filesystem (I hope we can
> > avoid derailing into an argument about whether that's a sensible thing
> > to do, an
Le vendredi 18 juillet 2014 à 09:33 +0100, Colin Watson a écrit :
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 02:27:53PM +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
> > Could we add an exception to Debian policy 10.5 to mandate relative
> > symlinks when linking /usr/lib to /lib or do you envision other issues
> > I might have not
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 02:27:53PM +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
> Could we add an exception to Debian policy 10.5 to mandate relative
> symlinks when linking /usr/lib to /lib or do you envision other issues
> I might have not taken into account?
It's still possible to use /usr as a separate filesys
Hello,
As I read in debian policy:
10.5 Symbolic links
In general, symbolic links within a top-level directory should be
relative, and symbolic links pointing from one top-level directory to
or into another should be absolute. (A top-level directory is a
sub-directory of the root directory /.)
5 matches
Mail list logo