Font packages changes required for dropping chkfontpath/xfs
Kristian Høgsberg
krh at redhat.com
Wed Aug 8 20:13:41 UTC 2007
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 19:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
In the x fontpath case the chroot complaint is not valid. It's as big a
problem as having, say, the location of the rgb file compiled into the X
server. The symlinks are only dereferenced at run-time at which point
your chroot better be in effect.
Kristian
More information about the Fedora-maintainers
mailing list