1 |
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:13:26 +0200 |
2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:03:25 -0400 |
5 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> |
8 |
> > wrote: |
9 |
> > > can we *please* use the openrc useflag to have correct paths and |
10 |
> > > binary names again? |
11 |
> > > Just because upstream says we should be fedora doesn't mean we |
12 |
> > > have to do it. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > I think that having binaries going in different places based on a |
15 |
> > USE flag is going to lead to a big mess - especially if we're |
16 |
> > talking about system packages. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > If we want to argue about where we put something by all means hash |
19 |
> > it out or escalate to council. If we want to debate whether to |
20 |
> > install compatibility symlinks I think that is also more reasonable. |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> > However, I don't want the path to bash or glibc or whatever to |
23 |
> > depend on whether a particular package maintainer believes in |
24 |
> > the /usr move or even moreso whether some USE flag is set. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Path to bash can't change because it will break most of scripts |
27 |
> in the world. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Path to libc can't change because it will break all of the executables |
30 |
> in the world. |
31 |
|
32 |
Ah, sorry. Let me clarify: path to ld.so. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Best regards, |
36 |
Michał Górny |