[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: devel files and libraries in /lib

On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 04:47:28PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2011-01-04 16:33 +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:

> > In what way is it not already possible to symlink /usr to /?

> There are packages which ship a binary /bin/foo and a symlink
> /usr/bin/foo to it.  Those will likely be broken, since you may end up
> with only a broken recursive symlink.

Ugh.  I guess these packages do this for compatibility with scripts that
hard-code a /usr/bin/ path.  I don't think that's necessary/justifiable, but
it's certainly a problem that needs fixed before pointing /usr at /, yes. :/

> > I think the issue is that not all users *want* /usr symlinked to /, and
> > there's no benefit unless everyone switches to the new model.  Which is
> > rather awkward to enforce on upgrades; I don't know about you, but I have
> > some continuously-upgraded older systems where my /usr isn't going to fit on
> > my / filesystem.

> It is not possible to do the switch on upgrades anyway, at least not
> while every package ships files under /usr.  You can only do that when
> there are no packages installed that have files under /usr.

I don't agree.  dpkg doesn't need to care that /usr/lib/libm.so really
unpacks to /lib/libm.so due to /usr -> / symlink, *except* for the case
where the same path exists under both / and /usr; and that can be forbidden
by policy.  It won't be directly enforceable by dpkg, but I wouldn't be too
worried about the resulting bug count since creating your own symlinks here
is an oddball thing to do in the first place.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: