From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Baruch Siach Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 08:58:27 +0300 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] vim: install /bin/vi as a relative symlink In-Reply-To: <589643561.4441380.1531997921281.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.com.br> References: <20180718123443.7242-1-casantos@datacom.com.br> <20180718150350.4a910b0c@windsurf> <87fu0g53wd.fsf@tkos.co.il> <589643561.4441380.1531997921281.JavaMail.zimbra@datacom.com.br> Message-ID: <877elq5tz0.fsf@tkos.co.il> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Carlos, Carlos Santos writes: >> From: "Baruch Siach" >> To: "Thomas Petazzoni" >> Cc: "DATACOM" , "buildroot" , "Yann Morin" , >> "ratbert90" , "Arnout Vandecappelle" >> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 11:57:06 PM >> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH] vim: install /bin/vi as a relative symlink > >> Hi Thomas, >> >> Thomas Petazzoni writes: >>> Hello, >>> >>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 09:34:43 -0300, Carlos Santos wrote: >>>> Prevent creating a dangling symlink when vim is not present on the host >>>> machine. With BR2_ROOTFS_MERGED_USR, just link to "vim", since they are >>>> on the same directory, otherwise link to "../usr/bin/vim". >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Carlos Santos >>> >>> Baruch had already sent a patch with the same title/intention, but it >>> is no longer in the pending state in patchwork. >>> >>> Could you clarify what happened, and which of the two patches is >>> relevant ? >> >> My vim patch is at >> >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/943314/ >> >> I marked it as Rejected following the comment of Arnout. Carlos' patch >> works around the merged /usr issue by changing the symlink target for >> merged /usr. In my opinion this solution is error prone. > > Why? Because it is confusing, for me at least. Changes in the filesystem layout adding or removing directory symlinks might break them. >> It would be >> much easier to allow dangling symlinks in the target directory, and >> tweak the busybox install.sh to cope with that. That's what my pending >> busybox patch suggests. >> >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/944884/ > > Both patches could be applied. They are independent from each other. But if we allow dangling non-relative symlinks I don't think we want to add this complexity to the vim package, or any other package that installs similar relative symlinks. baruch -- http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{= - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -