On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:03:56 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > * debian/rules: > > + remove unused dh_link > > I (mildly) disagree with this change. Per the dh_link man page: > > dh_link also scans the package build tree for existing symlinks which > do not conform to debian policy, and corrects them (v4 or later). I didn't know about this dh_link feature, thanks. Does lintian catch such incorrect links? If yes, I'd slightly prefer to not call dh_link in general because it can always be added if needed (as in: as soon as lintian tells us about it :)). A little digging led me to Tag: symlink-should-be-relative Type: warning Info: Symlinks to files which are in the same top-level directory should be relative according to policy. (In other words, a link in /usr to another file in /usr should be relative, while a link in /usr to a file in /etc should be absolute.) Ref: policy 10.5 (and some other symlink-* tags). I guess these tests catch the problem in question (although a hint to dh_link in the tag descriptions in /usr/share/lintian/checks/files.desc might be useful.) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : debian: the universal operating system - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `- NP: Aimee Mann: That's How I Knew This Story W
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature