Sam Hartman wrote: > that looks like you are proposing doing it in an expedited manner *as > part of usrmerge*
I am not proposing doing *anything* in an expedited manner. I don't think it'd be feasible to make such a change in an expedited manner even if we *wanted* to, and in any case I wouldn't expect that. And I'm certainly not proposing making a change "as part of usrmerge". (I realize the subject of this message is about merged /usr. However, the point of this was not "let's change it because merged /usr"; the point was "perhaps we should take a look at this and evaluate it".) I was attempting to look at the system as a system, ask a question that I've seen raised many past times, and ask if there may be value in *having a discussion about it*. I would expect such a discussion to happen in parallel, and any potential change that arose as a result of it to happen in parallel, uncoupled to anything else. It seems unfortunate when *bringing up* the possibility of *discussing* a change is viewed as breaking things. I suggested "evaluating the net value" of /etc/shells. Part of the point of such an evaluation would be to discover, in fact, how people use it, what value it provides, what people's use cases are, what detriments it has, what other ways the same problems could be solved, and similar. That, to me, seems like precisely the kind of process by which people's input *can* be heard and respected. I don't think there are any areas of functionality that we shouldn't *evaluate* and consider possibilities in. That doesn't mean we should ever gratuitously change things without discussion and without taking input and use cases into account. - Josh Triplett
