| 1 |
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:42:01AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > William Hubbs posted on Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:40:49 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >> After the testing period is over, I'm confused about why we should |
| 6 |
> >> support both layouts. With separate usr without initramfs gone, the usr |
| 7 |
> >> merge is transparent to end users because of the symbolic links in /, so |
| 8 |
> >> there should be no reason to keep supporting both layouts once we are |
| 9 |
> >> satisfied with the migration process. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Because we're Gentoo, and gentooers tend to have rather strong opinions |
| 12 |
> > on what sort of choices we should be able to make about things like that. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I'm trying to think of whether offering a choice really costs us |
| 16 |
> anything. The main issue I see here is that the compatibility |
| 17 |
> symlinks only go one way. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> #!/bin/bash will work whether you've done a usr merge or not |
| 20 |
> #!/usr/bin/bash will probably only work if you've done the usr merge |
| 21 |
> #!/usr/bin/python will work whether you've done a usr merge or not |
| 22 |
> #!/bin/python will probably only work if you've done the usr merge |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That's correct, but you shouldn't be using shebangs like the second and |
| 25 |
fourth ones now either. The standard shebangs (the first and third |
| 26 |
ones) are fully compatible pre and post usr merge. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If people decide to start using non-standard shebangs like your second |
| 29 |
and fourth ones above, that is wrong and should be stopped. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
William |
Archives