Comment 7 for bug 7420

Robert Millan wrote:
> Please could you have a look at #265414 ? Looks to me like dh_link is too
> restrictive. Did you add the directory check recently?

dh_link has never supported a destination that is an existing directory
because the correct behavior is unclear. Some users expect the existing
directory to be rm -rf'd and replaced with a symlink. Some expect a
symlink to land inside the destination directory. The latter behavior
was the behavior of dh_link until 4.1.67, when I learned that the
behavior existed, and was broken, and disabled it. The behavior you want
has never been the behavior of dh_link. It is closer to correct
behavior, but given than there could still be packages that expect the
old behavior, I prefer to leave the error message in for a while to give
them time to be fixed.

--
see shy jo