Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms
Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> writes:
> It is less nonsensical because usrmerge exists, since we presumably
> don't want to keep the /bin paths in the packages, so at some point we
> need to move /bin/foo to /usr/bin/foo inside a package. That is safe
> with current dpkg, as dpkg will not delete /bin/foo if it has the same
> inode as a just-unpacked file.
[...]
I think this implies that writing something in Policy about this would be
premature. The issues you raise are related to something new that is
being discussed and would be part of a migration plan to a merged /usr
world. The appropriate time to document those details in Policy would be
after we agreed on a plan, not now when they're just tentative ideas.
Right now, in the absence of such a plan, it's obvious that having two
unrelated packages (that do not Conflict) ship a binary with the same name
in /bin and /usr/bin is not sensible, yes? (I believe that's the topic
under discussion in this thread.) I'm trying to understand if enough
people thought this was a sensible, non-buggy thing to do today that it's
worthwhile adding something to Policy explicitly saying that it's not.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: