Re: dpkg problems. Am I alone?
>>>>> "LP" == Loic Prylli <Loic.Prylli@ens-lyon.fr> writes:
LP> With my proposed change, the principle of
LP> least surprise would be applied, symbolic links will never be
LP> followed,
I can't argue with anything that you've written - as I said, it's
more a philosophical point for me than anything else. I just don't
think we should sacrifice functionality (and standard's compliance)
for any reason - especially not for code that should be fixed.
LP> I also agree that feature tests are generally much better
LP> because they still work in unexpected situation. But in the
LP> situation we are speaking of, THE SIMPLE FEATURE TEST DOES NOT
LP> WORK IN SOME KNOWN AND EXPECTED SITUATIONS,
This is true :)
LP> But if somebody is completely allergic to version test, I
LP> suggest we try at least to test in the libc that we are not
LP> subject to the bug in old kernels, that are returning EPERM
LP> instead of ENOSYS. Would that be ok, if we decide the kernel
LP> is broken when: - it returns EPERM - we are root - the kernel
LP> version is one normally known not to support lchown?
Once again, I can't disagree with you. I have this profound dislike
for cluttering clean code with bug workarounds, when the bugs are
fixable, and that's why I'm being more obstinate than I should
be. There's no real reason to refuse patches to implement what you're
suggesting (and I should bloody well get out of the way instead of
grumbling :).
m.
Reply to: