hey, On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 08:35:03AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > 3 does not sound so bad to me; it's arguably user error anyway to replace a > > > package-provided directory with a symlink in this manner > > > If you consider this an user error, then what is the officially blessed > > way of relocating a package-prodived directory to a different (already > > mounted) file system? > > currently, that would be bind mounts. policy could definitely be more clear on this. specifically, 6.5.4 is somewhat misleading in that case: A directory will never be replaced by a symbolic link to a directory or vice versa; instead, the existing state (symlink or not) will be left alone and dpkg will follow the symlink if there is one. and i had never really heard that symlinking was to be frowned upon. i do like your suggestion of bind mounts though, and will probably do that myself in the future. sean --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature