Re: merged-/usr vs. partially-symlink-farmed-root
Hi Marvin,
On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 10:29 -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> 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."
No. I am comparing end results from two different proposals. I am not
talking about any intermediate state.
There is no replacing /bin with a /bin -> /usr/bin symlink ever in the
partially-symlink-farmed-root proposal. So you only get the symlinks
provided explicitly in /bin by packages and, e.g., dash would ship
forever a /bin/sh -> /usr/bin/sh symlink and this would be present on
all systems.
Only non-required symlinks like for, say, run-parts could be dropped.
See [1] about "finishing the transition".
[1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/02/msg00321.html
> 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.
Yes, but where it would work once the transition to the new proposed
layout differs between merged-/usr and partially-symlink-farmed-root
(unless one does fully-symlink-farmed-root including symlinks for all
binaries in /usr/bin and /usr/sbin, but that would be yet another
different proposal).
> However, do not use bogus arguments such as the one above to try to
> maken your point. It clutters the discussion with needless
> debunking.
I think you misunderstand how the partially-symlink-farmed-root
proposal is different from the merged-/usr proposal. Exactly to avoid
such misunderstandings the partially-symlink-farmed-root proposal
should not be named merged-/usr.
Ansgar
Reply to: