[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Is portage (/usr)/bin-merge safe?

[Duncan]

vivo75@×××××.com posted on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 13:14:41 +0200 as excerpted:

> While portage can be safe, for various reason (including the resultant
> pkg) I do prefer to do the move in post_src_install() #1 All my tests
> have been done against a manually converted filesystem

That's what mine would be...

> #1 excerpt from bashrc, this code is rough but work in the gentoo
> ebuilds tree domain
>
> move_root_to_usr() {

Thanks.  What I was thinking would actually reverse that (/bin being the 
real dir, /sbin being a symlink to it), given my (traditional sysadmin) 
pref for short paths, but I hadn't thought of a bashrc solution at all, 
so that gives me yet another way of doing it. =:^)

My first thought is that I prefer standard layout packages, however, 
easing interoperability should I decide to swap binpkgs with someone.  
(Yes, I'm aware of the security issues if the parties don't trust each 
other...)

But OTOH I think that solves issues such as path-based equery belongs, 
for instance.  Being amd64 for nearing a decade now (and no-multilib for 
several years of it), I'm used to worrying about that with the symlinked 
lib/lib64 thing, and that's the one thing I wasn't looking forward to 
with unified bins.  (I think I'll keep bin/sbin separate at first, see 
how bin/usr-bin go first, then think about bin/sbin.)

But if your bashrc solution /does/ solve the equery belongs path thing I 
might well use it on lib/lib64 as well...  (Either that or since I 
believe the libs are a profile thing and I'm already running a heavily 
modified profile, no @system for instance, I could probably simply modify 
that...  Actually, that's probably a better solution in any case, since 
it's just undoing mainline settings the same way mainline does them in 
the first place.)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman