Re: Making /usr/doc/XXX symbolic link to ../share/doc/XXX is BAD idea
On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 12:08:26PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > reassign 47298 debian-policy
> > thanks
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > If this is a bug, then it needs to be fixed for all packages,
> > not just libcgi-perl.
> >
> >
> > Marc> Due to lack of space on the main partition, I moved /usr/doc to
> > Marc> some other partition (let's call it /DISK2) and made /usr/doc
> > Marc> to be a symbolic link to /DYSK2/doc. Unfortunately, during next
> > Marc> upgrade I found, that: [...]
>
> We do not currently support /usr/doc being a symlink to somewhere else,
> The right way to do this is to mount a partition under /usr/doc.
>
> I think this has to be fixed by Marc in his system.
Santiago, there is a reason why we don't support /usr/doc being a symlink to
someplace else -- because of the insistance on using relative symlinks.
AFAICT, if we switch to absolute, problems such as this will go away.
Would that be opening new problems?
Of course, the phrase `just switching' implies that it would be quick and
easy -- which I have no doubt that it would be painful and difficult. Since
/usr/doc is supposed to go away anyway, perhaps it isn't worth trying to fix
up something for Marc's unique situation, but -- recognize that it really
isn't Marc's fault that we require relative symlinks rather than absolute,
and if we were using absolute, it would not have been a problem in the first
place.
Why were relative required to begin with? From my perspective, I can't see
any real good reasons.
Thanks :)
ObDisclaimer: IMHO, IANADD(Y), IANAL, my($0.02), etc. All wrongs reserved.
:)
--
Seth Arnold | http://www.willamette.edu/~sarnold/
Hate spam? See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ for help
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into
your ~/.signature to help me spread!
Reply to: