Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms
Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> writes:
> Thank you - it has been brought up in this thread as an example of a
> valid setup, so if it is not, I think it could be good to be extra clear
> in the policy? How about the following:
If we tried to document every random bit of buggy packaging behavior
anyone thought of in Policy, Policy would become unwieldy, so I want to
verify here that someone really thought having one package containing a
file in /bin and another package containing the same file in /usr/bin was
was a reasonable thing to do (as opposed to accidental). Are there
packages in the archive like this? Or could you point me at the message
in the thread that said this was non-buggy? I think I missed it.
This seems clearly nonsensical to me even if usrmerge was never on the
horizon, since which binary you got would randomly depend on the PATH
ordering and the order of /bin vs. /usr/bin in user-set PATHs is not fixed
and has never mattered.
(It may be that someone has done this *accidentally* and thus created an
edge case that the package management system has to cope with, but that's
a question of finding buggy packages, which is not something Policy can
really help with.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: