Re: merged-/usr vs. partially-symlink-farmed-root
* Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> [210822 17:29]:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 12:29 -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > * Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> [210822 05:08]:
> > > To get a filesystem layout equivalent to merged-/usr via symlinks
> > > farming *every* package shipping files in at least /usr/bin,
> > > /usr/sbin and possibly some of /usr/lib would need to include
> > > symlinks in /bin, /sbin, /lib. This would affect far more
> > > packages than updating the packages currently shipping files in
> > > /bin, /sbin and /lib* to ship these under /usr instead.
> >
> > It is true that for a symlink-farm-usr-merge system to be strictly
> > equivalent to a symlink-dir-usr-merge system, many packages that
> > never had /bin/foo but had /usr/bin/foo would have to add a symlink
> > /bin/foo, however this is clearly unnecessary.
>
> No, it is required if we want users to be able to run scripts that use
> `#!/bin/python3` (or similar for other interpreters). Such scripts
> exist in the wild, they were not initially written on Debian.
>
> These would need Debian-specific patches to work on Debian. It is just
> the opposite of now having to patch software packaged in Debian to use
> /bin/rm instead of /usr/bin/rm (that also happens in the wild for
> software not developed on Debian). We also happen to miss such
> instances and needlessly make software buggy on Debian.
>
> Not having to worry about yet another small incompatibility between
> distributions is a nice feature.
Yet they cannot be counted on to work on Debian now, nor will they on
non- or partially-merged systems. You are saying "the end result is
thus, so the partially merged system must have this property." That
does not follow. It is part of the impatience for a finished product
that usually ends up with something less ideal than would be possible
with a more patient approach. (And the symlink-dir approach appears to
me to be driven primarily by impatience.)
Anyone who has a '#!/bin/python3' script now, must ensure the link is
there themselves, and that would not change in the middle of a
symlink-farm transition, nor would it hinder such transition.
I was initially in favor of the symlink-farm approach, because it is the
correct technical solution. I have become convinced that the
symlink-dir approach is the correct social solution (which is often, and
I believe in this case it is, worse than the correct technical
solution). I also believe that fixing dpkg to handle the general
"symlink dir on file system where .deb has a real dir" case is useful
for other cases.
However, do not use bogus arguments such as the one above to try to make
your point. It clutters the discussion with needless debunking.
...Marvin
Reply to: