| 1 |
On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 11:36:09 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote: |
| 2 |
> As for those benefits, they do little for {/usr,}/sbin vs |
| 3 |
> {/usr,}/bin, which is where the incompatibilities tend to live. |
| 4 |
> I encountered one of these in powertop the other day (patch |
| 5 |
> pending). The benefits of being able to access things from both |
| 6 |
> places are somewhat exaggerated given that compatibility among |
| 7 |
> systems has long required searching $PATH and likely always |
| 8 |
> will. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
PATH is a shell thing; some libc functions like execvp duplicate this |
| 11 |
functionality but that's all; you dont have PATH in shebangs nor in execv. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
>> Note, we are not |
| 14 |
>> talking about squashing /usr out of the equasion, but merging /bin, |
| 15 |
>> /sbin and /lib* into their counterparts in /usr and creating symlinks in |
| 16 |
>> the root directory pointing to the counterparts in /usr. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> While one guy did the reverse (and the reverse ought to be okay |
| 19 |
> for those that want to do that), no one appears to think that |
| 20 |
> adopting the reverse is what is being suggested. Having this |
| 21 |
> sort of clarity on whether forcing this on everyone via |
| 22 |
> baselayout update, just providing the option for those who want |
| 23 |
> it or some combination of the two (e.g. a long transition period |
| 24 |
> in which both are supported) is being discussed would be nice |
| 25 |
> though. This is not a Boolean decision. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I've been under the impression since the beginning of the thread that it is |
| 28 |
what is being proposed: make it possible but support both. We can't force |
| 29 |
usr-merge without battle testing the migration process anyway, which means |
| 30 |
there needs to be such a long transition period. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Alexis. |
Archives