Re: dangling symlinks and upgrades (was "invisible application after upgrade"). [CLOSED]

(context) In the "invisible application after upgrade" thread, Ed did not know how I did my upgrade to f33.  I responded that I mostly followed the Fedora upgrade instructions from here: "https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-upgrade/", and listed the sequence of commands that I did.  That included the steps symlinks -r /usr | grep dangling symlinks -r -d /usr from the "Clean-Up Old Symlinks" section.  Andras responded that > This isn't necessarily a good idea, because those dangling symlinks > may belong to their respective packages. If so, removing them will > compromise the integrity of the package they belong to. If Andras is correct, then the upgrade instructions need to be changed. Based on past experience, when a bug is submitted against Fedora documentation, the Fedora documentation team will want suggestions on how the document should be worded. (question 1) What should the instructions say?  Is there a better yet easy and safe way to find and clean out dangling symlinks?  Maybe more detail should accompany "After you verify the list of broken symlinks"? (question 2) In a later post, Andras provided and example of a dangling symlink (in the "hunspell" package) that should not be deleted. When I was a C/C++ programmer (a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away), dangling pointers (and memory leaks) were naughty; they can cause serious problems.  Isn't a dangling symlink a file system parallel to a dangling pointer in a C/C++ program?  What good, valid purpose is there for a package to have a dangling symlink?  Or maybe "hunspell" needs a little clean-up?