On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 02:19:46PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> It's quite obvious now, wrt this bug and bug#84067, that policy is not
> right on symlinks; absolute symlinks should be allowed, because otherwise
> people with different filesystem hierarchies will have things break,
> and other boundary
On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 02:19:46PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> It's quite obvious now, wrt this bug and bug#84067, that policy is not
> right on symlinks; absolute symlinks should be allowed, because otherwise
> people with different filesystem hierarchies will have things break,
> and other boundary
On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 07:13:44PM +, Luis Arocha -data- wrote:
> I think I must maintain relative symlinks (otherwise I would be against
> debian policy 11.5), however skilled feedback would be wellcomed.
[...]
> The files in /usr/share/glade/gnome are symlinks to corresponding files in
> /usr
Hi,
I've just received this bug.
I think I must maintain relative symlinks (otherwise I would be against
debian policy 11.5), however skilled feedback would be wellcomed.
Thanks in advance,
- Forwarded message from Martin Sjögren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 13:11:36 +
On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 07:13:44PM +, Luis Arocha -data- wrote:
> I think I must maintain relative symlinks (otherwise I would be against
> debian policy 11.5), however skilled feedback would be wellcomed.
[...]
> The files in /usr/share/glade/gnome are symlinks to corresponding files in
> /us
Hi,
I've just received this bug.
I think I must maintain relative symlinks (otherwise I would be against
debian policy 11.5), however skilled feedback would be wellcomed.
Thanks in advance,
- Forwarded message from Martin Sjögren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 13:11:36
6 matches
Mail list logo
