Bug 5664

Summary: installation messes up symlinks
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: mw
Component: installerAssignee: Matt Wilson <msw>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact:
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 6.1CC: alex, mw
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2000-02-14 13:04:51 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description mw 1999-10-07 02:00:29 UTC
I thinks this has nothing to do with the symlinks package
---but I had to choose a component.

I just upgraded to 6.1 (via ftp) from 6.0.  I chose to
upgrade, and not to customize the packages to upgrade. I was
 almost at the end of the installation when I get an error
 message that  prompts me if I want to debug.  I did not, so
 the system went down, but could never come back.

With my old rescuse disk, I booted, and noticed that / was
 full. The reason it was full was that my three symlinks

doc -> ../hda5/usr/doc
share -> ../hda5/usr/share
src -> ../hda5/usr/src

in /usr got removed by the installation, and got replaced by
 actual directories

/usr/doc, /usr/share, /usr/src

This of course, ate up the 300+M freespace on /.

Curious, I verified this behavior one more time: I
 reinstated the symlinks, again ran the upgrade, and again
 the above symlinks got removed.

Here is the relevan partition table, in case you decide to
 try to duplicate my observation:

/dev/hda1   *         1       128   1028128+  83  Linux
/dev/hda2           129       525   3188902+   5  Extended
/dev/hda5           129       218    722893+  83  Linux
/dev/hda6           219       308    722893+  83  Linux
/dev/hda7           309       317     72261   82  Linux swap


------- Additional Comments From   10/20/99 17:11 -------
It seems it is crucial that my symlinks are *relative* symlinks.
When I use absolute links, all seem well.


Comment 1 Jay Turner 2000-02-14 13:04:59 UTC
I was able to perform an upgrade from 6.1 to the beta for 6.2 without any
problems.  Note that I was using symbolic links for this upgrade.  So, I think
this issue might be resolved.  Please reopen if you are still having problems.