| 1 |
On 01/14/2013 01:33 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: |
| 2 |
> I've seen this pop up a lot recently: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> * One or more symlinks to directories have been preserved in order to |
| 5 |
> * ensure that files installed via these symlinks remain accessible. This |
| 6 |
> * indicates that the mentioned symlink(s) may be obsolete remnants of an |
| 7 |
> * old install, and it may be appropriate to replace a given symlink with |
| 8 |
> * the directory that it points to. |
| 9 |
> * |
| 10 |
> * /var/run |
| 11 |
> * |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> This might just be me being dense, but this doesn't seem very |
| 14 |
> actionable to me. Who should replace the given symlink with the |
| 15 |
> directory that it points to, the user or the package maintainer? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It depends on who created the symlink in the first place, and whether or |
| 18 |
not the symlink is still desirable. Unfortunately, there are a number of |
| 19 |
possible scenarios. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
You probably want to keep that /var/run symlink, at least until all of |
| 22 |
your installed packages have been fixed to use /run directly. You can |
| 23 |
suppress the warning by putting a setting like this in make.conf: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
UNINSTALL_IGNORE="${UNINSTALL_IGNORE} /var/run" |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That will prevent portage from trying to uninstall that symlink. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> And where should it be replaced? In ebuild code? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
It's possible for ebuild code to do it, if appropriate for the given |
| 32 |
scenario. For example, the skype ebuild removes an obsolete |
| 33 |
"${EROOT}"/usr/share/${PN} symlink in pkg_preinst. |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Thanks, |
| 36 |
Zac |
Archives