Font packages changes required for dropping chkfontpath/xfs

[Tom Lane]

Jeremy Katz <katzj at redhat.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 16:12 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> This is merely an rpmlink complaint.  Symlinks aren't mentioned in the
>> packaging policy at all.

> The chroot concern is real, though.  And unless there's a really good
> reason for it, symlinks _should_ be relative.  Even if all they have in
> common is /.

Can you show an example where that actually helps?  I can think of a
number of cases where it'd be a bad idea, and none where it really
solves a problem.

I'm interested in this because I'm about to stick a symlink to
/usr/share/zoneinfo into one of my packages, and I cannot see a good
reason to spell it as ../../../../usr/share/zoneinfo.

			regards, tom lane