Font packages changes required for dropping chkfontpath/xfs

[Jeremy Katz]

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.

The case where your chroot is fully formed, but the system outside is
something entirely different.  The installer environment being one good
example where this has bitten in the past :-)   To the point where we
actually have checks to avoid problems on upgrades looking at certain
things and making sure that they're relative rather than absolute
symlinks

Jeremy