Bug#1051371: Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> writes:
> But the subject of this issue talks about "script interpreters", not
> just `/bin/sh` (which I guess is safe to assume would be one of the
> "handful").
> It is unclear what files the Jackson symlink farm proposal would leave
> in /bin. Would /bin/python3 stay? Or would it stay first, but dropped
> at some later point? What about /bin/perl, /bin/zsh, /bin/env, ...?
Oh, okay, I see what you're syaing now. This is a bit beyond the scope of
the areas of Policy touched by Luca's proposal, but I can see why it would
indeed arise under Ian's proposal. We've introduced new /bin interfaces
for every binary in /usr/bin, and if we went down that path we'd remove
most of those interfaces again. That is indeed an argument for (c) for
*most* things, just not the areas touched by this diff (with the possible
exception of /bin/csh; I'm not sure if that would qualify for an exception
or not, these days).
So yes, I agree that the resolution of this bug would significantly affect
what we want to say in Policy about /usr-merge in general, even if not
what we say about /bin/sh.
I still don't feel like we need to wait for the TC bug to be resolved,
since there is a standing TC decision to make /bin a symlink to /usr/bin
and we can always change our wording later if that decision changes, but
we need to wait for the buildd /usr-merge anyway, so either way I don't
think we're ready to merge patches for this bug right now.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: