| 1 |
On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:04 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:02 PM Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert <soap@g.o> |
| 5 |
> > wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <soap@g.o> |
| 8 |
> > > > wrote: |
| 9 |
> > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: |
| 10 |
> > > > > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs |
| 11 |
> > > > > > wrote: |
| 12 |
> > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny |
| 13 |
> > > > > > > wrote: |
| 14 |
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: |
| 15 |
> > > > > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they |
| 16 |
> > > > > > > > > |
| 17 |
> > > > > > > > > have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving |
| 18 |
> > > > > > > > > users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, |
| 19 |
> > > > > > > > > Gentoo follows suit. |
| 20 |
> > > > > > > > |
| 21 |
> > > > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with |
| 22 |
> > > > > > > > /usr/sbin |
| 23 |
> > > > > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P |
| 24 |
> > > > > > > |
| 25 |
> > > > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The |
| 26 |
> > > > > > > idea of |
| 27 |
> > > > > > > the |
| 28 |
> > > > > > > /usr |
| 29 |
> > > > > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and |
| 30 |
> > > > > > > there |
| 31 |
> > > > > > > really |
| 32 |
> > > > > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. |
| 33 |
> > > > > > |
| 34 |
> > > > > > Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means |
| 35 |
> > > > > > that |
| 36 |
> > > > > > /bin, |
| 37 |
> > > > > > /sbin, / |
| 38 |
> > > > > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? |
| 39 |
> > > > > > |
| 40 |
> > > > > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should |
| 41 |
> > > > > > have the |
| 42 |
> > > > > > possibility |
| 43 |
> > > > > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be |
| 44 |
> > > > > > supported. |
| 45 |
> > > > > > |
| 46 |
> > > > > > --Dennis |
| 47 |
> > > > > |
| 48 |
> > > > > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the |
| 49 |
> > > > > complete 2- |
| 50 |
> > > > > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is |
| 51 |
> > > > > obsolete. |
| 52 |
> > > > |
| 53 |
> > > > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE |
| 54 |
> > > > flag. |
| 55 |
> > > > |
| 56 |
> > > > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links |
| 57 |
> > > > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this |
| 58 |
> > > > is not |
| 59 |
> > > > possible? |
| 60 |
> > > > |
| 61 |
> > > |
| 62 |
> > > William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the |
| 63 |
> > > complete |
| 64 |
> > > Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO). |
| 65 |
> > |
| 66 |
> > William's opinion is not the only one that matters. |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
> Sorry, I guess you are referring to the behavior baselayout? That |
| 69 |
> doesn't necessarily align with the global usage. |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/baselayout.git/tree/Makefile#n93 |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
Clearly the usr-merge in baselayout intends to merge all these 4 |
| 75 |
directories. There is currently no option to merge /usr and / but keep |
| 76 |
/bin and /sbin separate, so the most parsimonious solution here is to |
| 77 |
assume that usr-merge semantics in Gentoo is about merging all 4 |
| 78 |
directories. |
Archives