Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Tar extract behaviour changed

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 09:41:30PM -0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <>,
> Joerg Sonnenberger  <> wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 04:58:05PM -0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >> I am not advocating for either, perhaps we should just add -P to the
> >> extraction and get over it :-)
> >
> >From what I can tell there are two completely separate issues:
> >
> >(1) Abuse of symlinks to shuffle the tree somewhere else. IMO whoever
> >wants to do that should be using null mounts and deal with it
> >appropiately in sysinst or whatever on their own.
> >
> >(2) Certain rc.d scripts populate a chroot with files from /etc and
> >replace the original locations with symlinks.
> >
> >For that one, there are a couple of options:
> >(a) Move the directories under /etc from base.tgz to etc.tgz.
> >(b) Don't use symlinks, but null mounts. Possibly even ro-mounts.
> >    Fix up existing setups in the rc.d scripts.
> >
> >(a) should be the easiest way to avoid that set of surprises.
> I think that the reason that those files are in the base set and not
> in etc is because they are expected to be managed by the system and
> not customizable by the user. If we move them to etc, then postinstall
> should handle them to preserve the user experience (of not having to
> extract etc to upgrade).

It is not about the *files*, but the *directories*. I don't think they
are very useful without content, but yeah, postinstall might need to
know about creating them.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index