Comment 43 for bug 633636

Counting myself to the crowds unhappy about this essential lack.

It basically and ilogically push the burden of figuring all the bits of
the deployment layout beforehand to the packages maintainers, but that's
in steep contrast with a fact not everything can be anticipated in the
organic development of particular projects, whereas symlinks are basic
means of retaining the compatibility and/or maintaining non-redundancy.

One big issue I see with scriptlet-based workarounds is that such files
are not covered in metadata tracking for integrity checks (rpm -qV).

Still no chance to get this reconsidered?

In my case, I am going to stick with per-file granular symlinks, even
if mere directory symlinking would be a better fit. But I can imagine
situations where it would get painful, luckily I have just a few files
to symlink.