[Rpmlint-discuss] [Rpmlint] #25: Absolute vs relative symlinks

[Rpmlint]

#25: Absolute vs relative symlinks
------------------+---------------------------------------------------------
Reporter:  scop   |       Owner:  misc at zarb.org
    Type:  task   |      Status:  new          
Priority:  minor  |   Component:  rpmlint      
 Version:  trunk  |    Keywords:               
------------------+---------------------------------------------------------
 symlink-should-be-relative is currently missing a description, see
 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/196008

 Debian's lintian and policy manual put it this way:
 http://lintian.debian.org/reports/Tsymlink-should-be-relative.html
 http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s10.5

 I was about to copy-paste the Debian description for the message, but then
 started to wonder: what are the benefits of absolute symlinks over
 relative ones in the first place?  And why is the line drawn at whether
 the link points to another top-level dir or not?

 The only slight benefit for absolute symlinks I can see is that they may
 be a bit easier for humans to read eg. in "ls -l" outputs if the link is
 deep in the dir hierarchy.  But that is IMO easily trumped by possible
 dangers of absolute symlinks for example when operating on chroot jails
 from the outside.

 What am I missing?  If nothing, I'd suggest making rpmlint always want
 relative symlinks, no matter where they point, and dropping the symlink-
 should-be-absolute check and message altogether.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/25>
Rpmlint <http://rpmlint.zarb.org/>
Rpm correctness checker