[Fedora-packaging] Re: Absolute symlinks

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 11:21:41PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> rpmlint spits symlink-should-be-relative warnings when it sees an
> absolute symlink, and generally folks have fixed things up when
> presented with the warning.

what is the rationale behind preferring relative to absolute symlinks
(unless relative means in the same folder)? I would even prefer it the
other way around to avoid breakage.

> But now I've hit a review where the packager thinks an absolute
> symlink is appropriate and I'm not sure whether it's really an
> issue.  The guidelines are silent on the subject; the only mention I
> see of it is in the mono guidelines, which say:
> 
> ----
> Mono installs binaries in /usr/lib/<package>/bin with symlinks back to
> /usr/bin. rpmlint is not happy with this and generates an error (which
> is the correct behaviour).
> ----
> 
> That statement is somewhat confusing; is generating the error correct
> behavior?  Is the symlink supposed to be fixed up or not?  And does
> this apply in general to non-mono packages?
> 
>  - J<
> 

-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20060822/b09172f6/attachment.bin