Please review/vote on the attached patch.
Created attachment 603710 [details] 0001-filesystem-Policy-against-absolute-targets.patch
"Portage has a historical hack ..." How is that paragraph relevant? We should consider what PMS says, not package manager bugs that have been fixed long time ago. (Also, won't that portage bug defeat what the policy says about /proc and /run?)
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #2) > "Portage has a historical hack ..." How is that paragraph relevant? We > should consider what PMS says, not package manager bugs that have been fixed > long time ago. It provides additional reason why it won't work. > (Also, won't that portage bug defeat what the policy says about /proc and > /run?) Yes, it breaks it. However, I don't think we should explicitly ban this for the sake of Portage on Prefix.
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #3) > It provides additional reason why it won't work. It just weakens the reasoning of the preceding paragraph. If absolute symlinks are bad in the non-prefix case, then the first part of the rationale should be enough. OTOH, if we would need prefix and portage bugs as arguments, then we shouldn't have this policy.
Created attachment 603732 [details, diff] v2 Removed the second reason.
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #5) > Created attachment 603732 [details, diff] [details, diff] > v2 > > Removed the second reason. LGTM
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/policy-guide.git/commit/?id=acb2659d5d3c67579105d0b297dfda4bc92edf47 commit acb2659d5d3c67579105d0b297dfda4bc92edf47 Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2020-01-19 12:39:34 +0000 Commit: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2020-01-19 20:09:53 +0000 filesystem: Policy against absolute symlink targets Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/705830 Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/policy-guide/pull/5 Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> filesystem.rst | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
