Re: Shall we state about #17624 dpkg feature(bug?)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 03:54:52AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Isn't the system administrator is discouraged from manipulating filesystem
> > objects that should be under the control of the packaging system? If she
> > wants to distribute files over different filesystems, there are better ways
> > (like mount, especially in 2.4.x).
>
> He could play tricks with bind-mounts, but that is Linux specific, and then
> even for 2.4 kernels. It should definitely be possible to distribute things
> different over filesystems if the admin so desires.
Even without bind-mounts, the usual method is to mount separate filesystems
where needed at various points in the tree. bind-mounts, while handy, are not
necessary to solve this problem.
There are already many places where we don't support creation of such symlinks
by the admin, because we use a lot of relative symlinks.
Surely the Hurd, with its rich namespace functionality, has a way to do
something similar to mount --bind. If not, it at least has something analogous
to a standard mount.
> > I don't quite understand what you're saying. What would cause those other
> > files to disappear? The symlink could be unpacked as foo.dpkg-new, then
> > the old directory removed and/or renamed and the symlink switched into
> > place.
>
> There might be extra files in the place the symlink points to that suddenly
> would no longer be available.
Ah, files that are not under the control of the packaging system. I
understand. Probably not worth the trouble to try to make that work.
--
- mdz
Reply to: