Re: New filesystem standard - do we want it ?
Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
>
> Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> > Yes, make this symlink (ln -s ../share/doc /usr/doc) on freshly
> > installed systems (where /usr/share/docs will really exist), while
> > make the opposite (ln -s ../../doc /usr/share/doc) on existing
> > systems (where /usr/doc is still there).
>
> Please, do not make any symlink.
>
> dpkg might get confused when removing a package if a directory
> uncompresses on a symlink-pointing-to-a-directory.
>
Hummm, if this is true then we have a problem with current "doc-linux"
standard, which installs a symlink to a directory.
I would like to hear Ian or Klee about this.
Anyway, the symlinks that I was talking about are installed by postinst
(should check which directory is present and symlinks to the other
location), so probably this is not a problem here.
The same applies to the removal (should check the database before
renaming the directory, to create a "pseudo-conflict" with any package
that still installs using the old path).
Fabrizio
--
| fpolacco@icenet.fi fpolacco@debian.org fpolacco@pluto.linux.it
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
> Just because Red Hat do it doesn't mean it's a good idea. [Ian J.]
Reply to: