| 1 |
On Saturday 24 December 2005 03:43, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jason Stubbs posted <200512240222.06574.jstubbs@g.o>, excerpted |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> below, on Sat, 24 Dec 2005 02:22:06 +0900: |
| 5 |
> > A quick patch makes symlinks handled similarly to regular files and |
| 6 |
> > solves the issue. I'll put it into testing unless anybody can come up |
| 7 |
> > with a reason not to. The case that will be broken by the patch is when |
| 8 |
> > two different packages install the same symlink. PackageA is |
| 9 |
> > installed, PackageB is installed, PackageB is uninstalled -> PackageA is |
| 10 |
> > broken. Does this case exist? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Yikes! That's not going to remove /lib or /usr/lib or the like, for us on |
| 13 |
> amd64, where that's a symlink to lib64, will it? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> equery b /lib |
| 16 |
> [ Searching for file(s) /lib in *... ] |
| 17 |
> net-analyzer/macchanger-1.5.0-r1 (/lib) |
| 18 |
> sys-apps/baselayout-1.12.0_pre12 (/lib) |
| 19 |
> sys-boot/grub-0.97 (/lib) |
| 20 |
> sys-devel/gcc-4.0.2-r1 (/lib) |
| 21 |
> sys-devel/gcc-3.4.4-r1 (/lib) |
| 22 |
> sys-fs/device-mapper-1.01.05 (/lib) |
| 23 |
> sys-fs/lvm2-2.01.14 (/lib) |
| 24 |
> sys-fs/udev-078 (/lib) |
| 25 |
> sys-libs/glibc-2.3.6 (/lib) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> There's a similar, longer list, for /usr/lib. Obviously, not all of |
| 28 |
> those will own it as a symlink, but it is one, and if removing one happens |
| 29 |
> to remove the symlink... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I'm not familiar with equery so I don't know what this output means. By the |
| 32 |
look of it, it is only a list of packages that own stuff in that directory. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> Also consider the effect where a former dir is now a symlink or a former |
| 35 |
> symlink is now a dir. The recent xorg directory moves come to mind. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
With the patch I've done, recorded symlinks will continue to be ignored if the |
| 38 |
target is not a symlink. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> You are /sure/ the new code won't screw anything of that sort up, right? |
| 41 |
> Maybe that's the reason nobody seems to have been around to know about. |
| 42 |
> It just sounds like it /could/ be dangerous to me. For some reason, I |
| 43 |
> don't like the idea of something that could hose a system that badly! =8^\ |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
*Please* don't tell me you run ~arch. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives