1 |
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <soap@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: |
4 |
> > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote: |
5 |
> > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
6 |
> > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: |
7 |
> > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they |
8 |
> > > > > |
9 |
> > > > > have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving |
10 |
> > > > > users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, |
11 |
> > > > > Gentoo follows suit. |
12 |
> > > > |
13 |
> > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with /usr/sbin |
14 |
> > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P |
15 |
> > > |
16 |
> > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of the |
17 |
> > > /usr |
18 |
> > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there |
19 |
> > > really |
20 |
> > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> > Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means that /bin, |
23 |
> > /sbin, / |
24 |
> > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the |
27 |
> > possibility |
28 |
> > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported. |
29 |
> > |
30 |
> > --Dennis |
31 |
> |
32 |
> I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2- |
33 |
> level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is obsolete. |
34 |
|
35 |
That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE flag. |
36 |
|
37 |
For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links |
38 |
unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this is not |
39 |
possible? |