On Mon, 07 Mar 2016, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Though shouldn't this be worded a bit more generic? There are also
> /lib32 vs /usr/lib32 and /lib64 vs /usr/lib64 (and possibly other
> suffixes like libx32).
>
> Also I don't think Policy should require maintainer scripts for the
> implementation of compatibility symlinks. I would prefer an
> implementation-neutral wording that would allow switching to dpkg
> handling these in some declarative way without having to change Policy.
>
> To support merged-<file>/usr</file> systems, packages must not
> install files in both <file>{path}</file> and
> <file>/usr/{path}</file>.
>
> In case a file gets moved between <file>{path}</file> and
> <file>/usr/{path}</file> and a compatibility symlinks is needed,
> the symlink must be managed in such a way that it will not
> break when, for example, <file>/bin</file> and <file>/usr/bin</file>
> are the same directory.
I also second this improved wording or any other wording in the same spirit.
I agree it's better than the initial wording. Though it would be good to
list the most common values of "{path}" (and you want to use <replaceable>
path</replaceable> in docbook instead of {path}).
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature