Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:57:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc Makefile Message-ID: <20041007114616.W708@ync.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <20041007071921.GA79430@ip.net.ua> References: <200410051303.i95D38Nl047864@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041005172056.GA4568@ip.net.ua><20041006204541.GA91640@ip.net.ua> <20041007071921.GA79430@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041007114616.W708>