From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3925 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Progress on roadmap to 0.9.13 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 12:33:36 -0400 Message-ID: <20130817163336.GC20515@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20130815075912.GA705@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20130817123913.771df1d0@vostro> <20130817233943.6c591ddf@sibserver.ru> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1376757228 24599 80.91.229.3 (17 Aug 2013 16:33:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:33:48 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-3929-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Aug 17 18:33:51 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VAjRl-0006oi-5t for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:33:49 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 30708 invoked by uid 550); 17 Aug 2013 16:33:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 30694 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2013 16:33:48 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130817233943.6c591ddf@sibserver.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3925 Archived-At: On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:39:43PM +0800, orc wrote: > I generally don't like the idea of symlink change, but if it will go, I > will not argue. But, how existing installs will resolve that change > in one pass during install? Do I need static busybox to manually > replace symlink? No, replacing the direction or even changing it back to how it is now should be safe as long as the actual-file is installed first and the link is installed after that. The current rules should provide that behavior. However I believe the atomicity of installing the actual file is still broken right now: it seems the old file is being overwritten rather than replaced. I'll check that and fix it if it's still the case. Rich