| 1 |
On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 13:02 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 01:50:25PM -0500, Olivier Crête wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I don't see what breakage would be caused by a big-bang update (move |
| 4 |
> > everything in /sbin,/bin/,usr/sbin to usr/bin and add symlinks. I really |
| 5 |
> > doubt any system has a /usr so tight that adding the couple things that |
| 6 |
> > are in / to /usr/bin would break it.. Btw, this also includes /lib* |
| 7 |
> > to /usr/lib*. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I think the best way to do this part of it is going to be to just follow |
| 10 |
> the upstream packages. When they release a new version that installs in |
| 11 |
> /usr, just allow that to happen. Eventually there will be very little in |
| 12 |
> /{bin,sbin,lib}, maybe nothing besides a couple of symbolic links like |
| 13 |
> /bin/sh. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I am not for what fedora is doing with the |
| 16 |
> /bin->/usr/bin, /sbin->/usr/sbin and /lib->/usr/lib symlinks. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
At least the upstreams that work for RedHat and Suse (and that's almost |
| 19 |
all system packages) will come to expect that these symlinks exist. For |
| 20 |
example, I just heard that kmod will expect kernel modules |
| 21 |
in /usr/lib/modules even though the kernel installs them |
| 22 |
in /lib/modules.. So yes, upstream will force these symlinks on us too. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
A couple years ago, Gentoo was the forward looking distribution, ready |
| 25 |
to try radical changes that break existing assumption, like our init |
| 26 |
scripts with dependencies or our early use of udev. These days, I see so |
| 27 |
much resistance to progress, it makes me sad. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Olivier Crête |
| 32 |
tester@g.o |
| 33 |
Gentoo Developer |
Archives