[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

symlink order confusion EXPLAINED! (Was: Re: Bug#59403: [PROPOSED] restrictions...)

Hash: SHA1

>>>>> "Joey" == Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:

    Joey> Anthony Towns wrote:
    >> > +    /usr/share/<package>/ and symlinked to /usr/share/doc/<package>/.
    >>                                            ^^
    >> "from" ?
    >> "and a symlink added in" ?
    >> As it is, it sounds backwards to me. No big deal.

    Joey> Hm, I can never get that right.

It's not backwards... thanks, Joey, I *finally* got why "ln -s A B" is
correct... or at least, why it can be seen as correct.  (It seemed
backwards to me too).

Just replace the "ln -s" with "cp", and the order is obvious.  Or,
replace "symlinked" with "copied", and the order explains itself.

    Joey> I amend my proposal to change "and symlinked to" to "with a
    Joey> symlink in". If any seconders have a problem with this,
    Joey> speak up to withdraw your second (yeah, right :-).

But that wording is a lot less ambiguous... people will get the
correct meaning, no matter which way they view symlinks (from the POV
of the symlink ("I point to this file") or from the operation ("We
make a copy, but only a symbolic one")),

    >> /usr/{share,lib}/reportbug/ and so on is presumably the proper
    >> place for extra things for reportbug, yes?

    Joey> Or maybe /usr/share/bugs if it shares them with bug. (I hope
    Joey> the 2 bug packages arn't diverging more here..)

BTW, what stands against merging them?  Hmm, choice of implementation
language, most probably (I'd say get rid of the bash version, python's
more readable anyway ;-))

Bye, J

- -- 
Jürgen A. Erhard      eMail: jae@ilk.de      phone: (GERMANY) 0721 27326
          My WebHome: http://members.tripod.com/Juergen_Erhard
           "Outside of a dog, a man's best friend is a book;
           inside of a dog, it's very dark." --  Groucho Marx
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use Mailcrypt and GnuPG <http://www.gnupg.org/>


Reply to: