On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 11:16 AM Bernhard Voelker <m...@bernhard-voelker.de> wrote: > > On 4/25/25 21:25, Pádraig Brady wrote: > > On 25/04/2025 19:41, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > >> Is there a particular reason why we only have > >> > >> --enable-single-binary=shebangs|symlinks > >> > >> i.e., no hardlinks? It seems to work very well. > >> > >> OTOH this might rather be a downstream packager issue? > > > > It's a good question. > > I can't remember any previous discussions on this. > > > > I can't really think of a reason hardlinks would be preferred, > > > > For updates the packaging system would have to handle > > hardlinked files appropriately. IIRC rpm does have logic > > for this, but I've not considered all edge cases, or other packaging > > systems. > > Indeed, that might be hassle for some. > > > Also symlinks are more informative as to what binary > > a particular command name is associated. > > > > Also symlinks are more flexible wrt cross file system handling > > (though that is unlikely I expect). > > right, nowadays even /bin and /usr/bin are merged in some/all(?) > distributions.
And bin and sbin are being merged. See <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin>. > > If someone can think of a valid use case, > > we could of course add it. > > Thanks ... I was just wondering. Jeff
