On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 04:56:04PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 05:35:11PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On May 07, ?????????? ?????????? <pashev.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > What about merging / and /usr ? > > An ambitious plan. > > I strongly support the "everything in /usr" scheme, but let's first > > consolidate support for "standalone /usr must be mounted by the > > initramfs". > > I'm working on this at the present (I'm re-doing the proof of concept > patches I made a few months back, to clean it all up and make it work > in a wider number of cases). I hope to have something by the end of > the week, time permitting. > > That said, I'm not in support of moving things to /usr; it's completely > backward. Once we have / and /usr mounted in the initramfs, then we > can work on deduplicating shared paths on / and /usr. This will give > us the option of migrating either way in the future (if ever). If we > do this, I'd prefer to make /usr a symlink to / on new installs, while > retaining full backward compatibility for existing users, and requiring > zero packaging changes. But the other way would also be possible--it > would just be a matter of d-i setting up the links. But none of this is > the primary reason for doing this initially. > > > Regards, > Roger
If you make /usr a symlink to / then there will be to distinct paths to each file and that will confuse dpkg. The first problem that comes to mind is package A containing /bin/foo and package B containing /usr/bin/foo. Dpkg will happily install both without noticing the file overwrite conflict. Or package A 1.0 contains /bin/foo and package A 1.1 contains /usr/bin/foo. IIrc then dpkg will unpack A 1.1 (overwrite /bin/foo with /usr/bin/foo) and then remove /bin/foo. Leaving you without /usr/bin/foo. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130509095031.GB31432@frosties