Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 09:22:20 +1000 From: David Nugent <davidn@labs.usn.blaze.net.au> To: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-etc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/mtree BSD.include.dist Message-ID: <199706042322.JAA16970@labs.usn.blaze.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Jun 1997 03:08:45 %2B0400." <Pine.BSF.3.96.970605030604.3289A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I guess so, unless we mandate the source dist. You know where the > > symlinks are pointing at, right? > > What bad happen in keeping the same scheme for release and for source > distribution and avoid such special cases? > I see some troubles happens if somebody will try to extract source > distribution over release (symlinks which overwrites directories) No, the symlinks go the other way (from /usr into /usr/src), and since all of the source distribution is in /usr/src, there's no danger in overwriting when extracting the source distribution. make world which includes make includes clobbers the directories in /usr/include and (re)makes the symlinks, kernel builds don't use /usr/include anyway, so there's no problem there either. I believe mtree being able to selectively not follow symlinks would be a possible solution here. Regards, David David Nugent - Unique Computing Pty Ltd - Melbourne, Australia Voice +61-3-9791-9547 Data/BBS +61-3-9792-3507 3:632/348@fidonet davidn@freebsd.org davidn@blaze.net.au http://www.blaze.net.au/~davidn/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706042322.JAA16970>