-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 06/01/12 04:28 AM, Duncan wrote: > Olivier Crête posted on Thu, 05 Jan 2012 21:03:32 -0500 as > excerpted: > >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:29 -0500, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: >>> Negative effects of removing the /bin/systemd symlink on >>> 2021-05-01: an unknown number of users who had forgotten to >>> update their grub.conf will discover that they can no longer >>> boot their systems. >>> >>> I would suggest not removing the symlink unless there is a >>> technical reason why its presence is undesirable. >> >> Doing aggressive migrations like that should really be avoided.. >> But we know that the real long term solution is to have a /bin -> >> /usr/bin symlink. > > I'm not a systemd user, but I did see his gentoo planet entry on > the topic, which explains why he's moving this fast. > > http://blogs.gentoo.org/mgorny/2012/01/04/moving-systemd-into-usr-the-technical-side/ > > In it he said he wished he'd introduced systemd with everything on > /usr in the first place. He sees the mistake now, and prefers to > correct it while the fewest gentoo users possible are yet using > systemd. As few are using it at this time and that number is > likely to grow over time, only making the transition harder, he's > moving much faster with the change than he'd ordinarily move.
If that's the case, why not force the breakage now and not install a symlink?? Maybe make this particular systemd update an interactive ebuild if it's replacing an older version of itself, so it forces users to actually stop, read, and take action when they do the upgrade? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAk8HE8IACgkQAJxUfCtlWe3hpwD8DHonBsyaV9DZQsCYH75CwiFH 60Jrbv2smIG4yrzbAR4A/3IuD9qYzdzzqxr+n4Tnuv4mlbEgocMNanoyALKExSEg =mRW1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
