Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:16:09 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >> I disagree, I've done it, and it works just fine.
I've advocated that
> >> all alternatives-using-packages (particularly jpackage ones) use this
> >> technique.
> > Now you've got N packages which pretend they own a
file/symlink.
> That's as it should be, imo. You would rather the
file/symlink be
> unowned?
But sure! The link target does not belong into any package
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then, that's ok. :)
-- Rex