| 1 |
On 20/6/19 9:40 pm, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:21 AM Jack <ostroffjh@×××××××××××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> The --analyze phase bailed out before even starting. I filed an issue |
| 4 |
>> upstream (mgorny's github repository) and he made a change (I didn't |
| 5 |
>> look at the actual commit) so this situation should now be handled |
| 6 |
>> correctly. I think he did want to accept anything that ended up |
| 7 |
>> pointing to the right place, but was afraid of ending up with an |
| 8 |
>> unpredictable result, so now it will accept either the relative or |
| 9 |
>> absolute form. I don't know when he will release a new version. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> IMO that was the right design choice. You just don't want to mess |
| 12 |
> around with these symlinks without care, so it is better to test that |
| 13 |
> everything is as expected. Otherwise you'll break some system that |
| 14 |
> somebody had tweaked 5 years ago and forgotten about. This way the |
| 15 |
> edge cases get reported, and can be taken into account before opening |
| 16 |
> things up more... |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
2 out of 7 systems have this style symlink - one is quite old (many |
| 19 |
years), the other only one year or so. How system level links would |
| 20 |
happen in this way is strange. Both systems have been through (in some |
| 21 |
cases multiple) restores from backup which may have been the cause. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
BillK |
Archives