[Bug 225977] Merge Review: ksh

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225977


Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak at v3.sk> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak at v3.sk>  2009-01-20 15:23:21 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)

Thanks for quick reply and addressing the problems!
/me is much impressed

> > 8.) Avoid absolute symlinks
> > 
> > ln -sf /bin/ksh $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/bin/ksh
> 
> could you please point me to some packaging guidelines or something about why
> should I avoid them? ln -sf ../../bin/ksh seems to me pretty ugly to do it
> without knowing the reason. thanks

Apart from that I don't see what's ugly about "ln -sf ../../bin/ksh", you're
probably right that the guidelines don't mandate this. At least I could not
find anything. Only piece of information I was able to dig was a rpmlint
warning, which is pretty non-specific:

"Absolute symlinks are problematic eg. when working with chroot environments."

I can't think of a real world-scenario where this would cause serious trouble.
(Not considering "Imagine I have a complete tree somewhere and I do `something'
to the linked file, such as write to it (there actually are tools that write to
binaries, such as prelink or execstack)"). So, while I strongly urge you to get
rid of that absolute symlink, it seems not to be mandatory.

By the way -- how about removing it? What's ksh in /usr/bin good for? We're
probably early enough in rawhide to have enough time to test if it breaks
something.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.