Re: merged-/usr vs. partially-symlink-farmed-root
* Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> [210823 11:16]:
> 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
I did, indeed, miss this. I stand corrected; please accept my
apologies.
While I understand Guillem's rational, I believe that the effort to
clean up once there are only symlinks in /{,s}bin could be easily
automated and would technically be worth the effort (including code in
dpkg to recognize symlinks such as /bin/dash → /usr/bin/dash and mark
them in its database as "intentionally not placed on the filesystem").
However, at this point, I don't believe it is socially feasible to
continue down the symlink-farm path.
Again, I apologize for the misinformed argument.
...Marvin
Reply to: