From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 7 18:57:44 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D75B16A4CE; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 18:57:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3DC443D39; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 18:57:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org) Received: from lap (c-24-130-110-32.we.client2.attbi.com[24.130.110.32]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <200410071857420120035p7ve>; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 18:57:43 +0000 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:57:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: Ruslan Ermilov In-Reply-To: <20041007071921.GA79430@ip.net.ua> Message-ID: <20041007114616.W708@ync.qbhto.arg> References: <200410051303.i95D38Nl047864@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041005172056.GA4568@ip.net.ua><20041006204541.GA91640@ip.net.ua> <20041007071921.GA79430@ip.net.ua> Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed cc: Brian Somers cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:57:44 -0000 On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > There's a chicken and egg problem with relative symlinking that uses > "..". While having it relative would "fix" an issue that you mention > above, it will equally create a problem if one has /etc as a symlink > to some other directory, not necessarily one-level deep from root. Errrrr, how likely do you think that is to actually happen? My feeling is that the number of people who'd be building disks in a separate environment is much, much greater than those who might be symlinking /etc. > Let's don't go this road again and again. We've learned the hard way > (with /usr/lib symlinks to /lib, please see bsd.lib.mk commit logs for > details) that relative symlinking that uses ".." is generally a bad > idea, and that it should only be used when we're confident that > resolving ".." will give us a sane path. Well, my feeling is that this is one of those cases. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection