Re: Why do I have to rant about Red Hat SCREWING with XFree everyupgrade?

[Thomas Dodd <ted@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matt Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 08:38:09PM -0400, Walter Francis wrote:
>
> > Don't tell me Red Hat doesn't support source installed things, that's a 
> > bunch of crap because IT HAPPENS.  I KNOW they can't possibly work around 
> > situations, but praytell why are these dir/links *backwards* in the first 
> > damn place?  That's the root of the problem.

How did you make the link? Is it absolute or relative?
I had similar problem with other packages in the past becaues I used an 
absolute symlink. When I changed it to a relative link rpm was OK.

Example: docs used to be /usr/docs, and /usr was getting full. So I 
moved them to /usr/local/docs and symlinked in /usr as 
docs->/usr/local/rpms/docs . Now When I went to upgrade the distro, that 
failed. because /usr/local was now /mnt/sysimage/usr/local but the link 
pointed to /usr/local. Changing the link to docs->./local/rpms/docs
allowed the upgrade to work.

> We put the xkb stuff in /usr/X11R6/lib/xkb because the bulk of it can
> (and should) be shared between systems.  The same reason that you ran
> into trouble is the reason it is hard to change that decision now.
> That is, it's quite hard to replace a directory with a symlink via a
> RPM upgrade.

Will the upgrade handle a relative symlink there instead. So when rpm 
tests /usr/X11/lib/xkb it's there, and them follows the existing link?
Sam when it tried to create the link in /etc/X11, it returns EEXISTS and 
rpm continues on.


And Walter, when you install your XFree86 from source, why not leave the 
link, and let XF86 follow it on install. Or edit the X config file to 
put it in /usr instead of /etc. Isn't that how the Red Hat changes it?

	-Thomas