Yes, like I said, the warning is a piece of education from the upstream.
I see no reason why distros should make a special statement about this
whatsoever. If *you* feel so, then *you* go file a request about it. By all
means.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
The guideline is in Fedora at least as long as the Git history goes, which is 5
years. The warning landed in RPM ~3.5 years ago. So if the RPM was pushed into
Fedora by the RPM team, it would be just fair to make sure that the guidelines
are aligned with what RPM does.
In this case, RPM is
Sorry but I don't go around lecturing distros what they should or shouldn't do.
That's what the warning is for.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2419#issuecomment-1759440435
You are receiving this because you are
Or this should be configurable and Fedora should be able to choose to configure
RPM in a way that it is consistent with their guidelines.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2419#issuecomment-1759344842
You are receiving
Then could you please do me a favor and propose update to Fedora packaging
guidelines? I won't do it myself, because I disagree with this and consider the
current guidelines to be correct. But they should be in line with what RPM
thinks if RPM changes its mind.
--
Reply to this email directly
Closed #2419 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2419#event-10629723475
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Rpm chroot installations and the associated problems (yes, content pointing to
system locations with a non-trivial risk of breaking things badly) with
absolute links are not specific to Fedora in any way. The warning is there for
a reason and the way to avoid it is to convert to relative links,
> Absolute symlinks are downright dangerous in combination with chrooted
> content. The absolute link okay inside the chroot of course, but have you
> never, ever looked at eg /var/lib/mock/ stuff without chrooting into it?
You mean that outside of chroot, they point to system locations? What
@dmnks , in reality these warnings are not the same because the filename
differs. The %patch case is similar: it *really* should print out the line
number + line, it was only made the way it is to allow us to squeeze it into
4.18.
We shouldn't get into a habit of producing bad warning
Absolute symlinks are downright dangerous in combination to chrooted content.
The absolute link okay inside the chroot of course, but have you never, ever
looked at eg /var/lib/mock/ stuff without chrooting into it?
The reason rpm complains about absolute symlinks is that they are problematic
Hmm, this looks like a good candidate for a treatment similar to #2383, i.e.
suppressing these warnings into a single one with a count.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2419#issuecomment-1460429925
You are receiving this
Just for the context, I am working on project to remove bundled assets in
generated RDoc documentation:
https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/darkfish.git/
This is going to replace the assets with symlinks and I think the absolute
symlinks is the right choice, because it allows
12 matches
Mail list logo
