Re: Is there still a point in installing libgcrypt to /lib instead of /usr/lib
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 06:26:32AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 19, Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > For any pathname that has been hardcoded a symlink can be used for
> > backwards compat, nothing unlike /bin or /sbin here. This looks just
> > like a normal bug from a botched transition, nothing special.
> Creating symlinks in /bin and /sbin DOES NOT result in a merged-/usr
> system, because the content of /usr would not be decoupled anymore from
> the content of /.
No, but it allows us to *transition* from the current situation to a
merged-/usr situation, *without* breaking the package manager's
expectations.
> A merged-/usr system must have /bin /sbin /lib* symlinks to /usr.
We can have a policy that by release X, any package installing anything
in /bin /sbin or /lib that is not a compat symlink is RC buggy.
Once we've reached that point, we can drop the directories and convert
them to symlinks. At that point, dpkg can also ignore any request to
create the compat symlinks, and later on we can make it an RC bug to
create compat symlinks if we wish to no longer support non-merged-/usr.
Yes, this approach takes more time, but it is an equally valid way to
move from unmerged /usr to merged-/usr, and is the approach that people
are advocating.
--
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22
Reply to: