[Buildroot] [PATCH] vim: install /bin/vi as a relative symlink

[Carlos Santos]

> From: "Baruch Siach" <baruch at tkos.co.il>
> To: "DATACOM" <casantos at datacom.com.br>
> Cc: "Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni at bootlin.com>, "buildroot" <buildroot at buildroot.org>, "Yann Morin"
> <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr>, "ratbert90" <aduskett at gmail.com>, "Arnout Vandecappelle" <arnout at mind.be>
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 2:58:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH] vim: install /bin/vi as a relative symlink

> Hi Carlos,
> 
> Carlos Santos writes:
>>> From: "Baruch Siach" <baruch at tkos.co.il>
>>> To: "Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni at bootlin.com>
>>> Cc: "DATACOM" <casantos at datacom.com.br>, "buildroot" <buildroot at buildroot.org>,
>>> "Yann Morin" <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr>,
>>> "ratbert90" <aduskett at gmail.com>, "Arnout Vandecappelle" <arnout at mind.be>
>>> 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 <casantos at datacom.com.br>
>>>>
>>>> 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.

Anyone that removes the directory symlinks is looking for trouble.

>>> 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.

The complexity is a consequence of the BR2_ROOTFS_MERGED_USR stuff.
We already need to deal with such situations in six packages. I'd
rather declare merged /usr as mandatory and send all those ifeq's
down the tubes.

-- 
Carlos Santos (Casantos) - DATACOM, P&D
“Marched towards the enemy, spear upright, armed with the certainty
that only the ignorant can have.” — Epitaph of a volunteer