fix: copy_dir and copy_file to preserve symlinks instead of following them.
#4671
+153
−6
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Previously, copy_dir would follow symlinks and copy the target contents. Now it preserves symlinks by reading the link target and creating a new symlink with the same target. Adds regression test copy_dir_preserves_symlinks.
Previously, copy_file created a symlink pointing to the source path rather than preserving the original symlink's target. Now it reads the link target and creates a symlink with that same target. Adds regression test copy_file_preserves_symlinks.
cachebag
force-pushed
the
preserve-symlinks
branch
from
7ce58b5 to
5460b37
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR employs symlink preservation in
copy_fileand adds it tocopy_dir.PR #1504 added symlink preservation to fix crashes in lldb-preview, which contains internal symlinks (liblldb was loading twice due to broken symlinks). Then, PR #1521 later changed
copy_fileto create symlinks pointing to the source path (for Homebrew integration), which may have regressed #1504.This PR restores #1504's behavior: read the symlink target and preserve it. What I'm curious about is what the intended behavior for #1521 was because shouldn't users be able to run
rustup-init --no-self-update? Is that not the recommended way to managerustupvia external package managers?If this PR steers out of scope of the goals of
rustupI'm happy to close it but I feel like the former behavior is preferable for most use cases.