Re: Relative and absolute symlinks
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> (Further discussion should happen on firstname.lastname@example.org, but please
> CC me.)
> During Manoj's "policy" talk at DebConf8, Gerfried opened the subject
> of the policy's stand on relative and absolute symlinks, which
> currently is "absolute if going through top-level, relative
> I wanted to give another data-point: Mailman switched its intra-/var/
> symlinks to be absolute, because relative symlinks there broke setups
> of people that "moved" their /var/lib/mailman/ directory to another
> partition, not through mounting, but through replacing their
> /var/lib/mailman/ directory by a symlink to elsewhere -
> e.g. /u/mailman . This broke e.g. relative symlinks
> /var/lib/mailman/log to ../../logs/mailman. Bugs #413604 and #408855
> contain the whole story.
> As policy doesn't technically *mandate* relative symlinks, but says
> "in general", we felt we could deviate from our own initiative.
> I must say I don't quite see in what scenario relative symlinks make
> something work that absolute symlinks do not make work.
> So, is there any reason at all to use relative symlinks?
I think it was done for efficiency, but I think correctness is more