[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110327210543.GA7505@openwall.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:05:43 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: absolute symlinks
Gremlin,
Thank you for reporting this, but these symlinks are made absolute on
purpose. So they will stay that way.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:19:27AM +0300, gremlin@...mlin.ru wrote:
> Link Points to Should point to
>
> /usr/tmp /tmp ../tmp
> /var/tmp /tmp ../tmp
* Tue Dec 14 2010 Solar Designer <solar-at-owl.openwall.com> 1.1-owl1
- Changed the /usr/tmp and /var/tmp symlinks to be absolute such that /var/tmp
works even when /var itself is a symlink (perhaps to a directory on a
filesystem shared with another part of the system). Thanks to (GalaxyMaster)
for noticing the problem with relative symlinks.
> /dev/fd /proc/self/fd ../proc/self/fd
> /dev/core /proc/kcore ../proc/kcore
* Thu Sep 02 2010 Solar Designer <solar-at-owl.openwall.com> 0.14-owl1
- Make the /dev/core and /dev/fd symlinks to under /proc absolute such that
they're not broken when /dev is moved in owl-cdrom (this reverts the change
made in 0.10-owl1).
> /etc/rmt /usr/libexec/rmt ../usr/libexec/rmt
# Can't have relative symlinks out of /etc as it's moved under /ram on CDs
ln -s %_libexecdir/rmt %buildroot/etc/
Arguably, we need to use a different approach to our LiveCDs (perhaps a
filesystem that would copy to RAM on write), but until we do, those
symlinks are to stay that way, and I don't see much of a problem with
that. Also, /var/tmp and /usr/tmp are more convenient to have as
absolute symlinks.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
