Ansgar writes:
> But the subject of this issue talks about "script interpreters", not
> just `/bin/sh` (which I guess is safe to assume would be one of the
> "handful").
> It is unclear what files the Jackson symlink farm proposal would leave
> in /bin. Would /bin/python3 stay? Or would it sta
On Sun, 2023-09-17 at 11:54 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> /bin/perl, /bin/env, /bin/python3 did not exist in the old scheme, so
> there is no point in creating them now.
No, in Debian's current filesystem layout (Debian stable and later;
partly Debian oldoldstable and later) all of these exist.
On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 08:52:17AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> > Control: unblock 1051371 by 1050001
> >
> > Ansgar writes:
> >
> > > However, there is a proposal by Jackson for an alternative filesystem
> > > layout based on symlink farms in consideration by the technical
> > > committee. This advo
Hi,
On Sat, 2023-09-16 at 12:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Control: unblock 1051371 by 1050001
>
> Ansgar writes:
>
> > However, there is a proposal by Jackson for an alternative filesystem
> > layout based on symlink farms in consideration by the technical
> > committee. This advocates remo
Bill Allombert writes:
> One of the issue in the past is that reproducible build was broken
> because different build environment lead to different paths. We at least
> need to address that.
I believe the reproducible build problem specifically will be largely
fixed by /usr-merging the buildds s
Sam Hartman writes:
> My problem with (b) is that I value interfaces and that especially for
> /bin/sh I do think that /bin/sh is more portable as an interface path
> than /usr/bin/sh.
To be clear, I personally agree with this, and I am sure that I will use
/bin/sh until the end of time, even if
Control: unblock 1051371 by 1050001
Ansgar writes:
> However, there is a proposal by Jackson for an alternative filesystem
> layout based on symlink farms in consideration by the technical
> committee. This advocates removing compat symlinks in /bin, /sbin over
> time[1], thus requiring (c).
T
Processing control commands:
> unblock 1051371 by 1050001
Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
1051371 was not blocked by any bugs.
1051371 was not blocking any bugs.
Removed blocking bug(s) of 1051371: 1050001
--
1051371: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bug
Processing control commands:
> unblock 1051371 by 1050001
Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
1051371 was blocked by: 1050001
1051371 was not blocking any bugs.
Removed blocking bug(s) of 1051371: 1050001
--
1050001: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepor
Luca Boccassi writes:
> On Wed, 13 Sept 2023 at 04:48, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Simon pointed out that this bug is not yet ready to act on, which was
>> very helpful. Thank you. However, presumably the buildds will be
>> /usr-merged at some point in the not-too-distant future, and we do need
>>
> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes:
Luca> On Wed, 13 Sept 2023 at 04:48, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>
>> Control: retitle -1 Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
>>
>> Simon pointed out that this bug is not yet ready to act on, which
>> was very helpful. Thank you
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 10:47:48AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 08:48:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Control: retitle -1 Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
> >
> > Simon pointed out that this bug is not yet ready to act on, which was very
> > helpful. Tha
On Wed, 13 Sept 2023 at 04:48, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Control: retitle -1 Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
>
> Simon pointed out that this bug is not yet ready to act on, which was very
> helpful. Thank you. However, presumably the buildds will be /usr-merged
> at some point in the
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> with a narrower issue). Several other people were, I think,
Russ> arguing for (a), but I'm not sure if they would continue to do
Russ> so when it's put in these terms.
It's hard for me to express what I was advocating for in the terms you
ha
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 08:48:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Control: retitle -1 Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
>
> Simon pointed out that this bug is not yet ready to act on, which was very
> helpful. Thank you. However, presumably the buildds will be /usr-merged
> at some poi
Control: block 1051371 by 1050001
Hi,
On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 20:48 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think the root problem behind this bug is that it is revealing we have
> not made a decision about /bin and /usr/bin path references in Debian
> after /usr-merge. Various people, myself included, ma
Processing control commands:
> block 1051371 by 1050001
Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
1051371 was blocked by: 1050001
1051371 was not blocking any bugs.
Ignoring request to alter blocking bugs of bug #1051371 to the same blocks
previously set
--
1051
Processing control commands:
> block 1051371 by 1050001
Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
1051371 was not blocked by any bugs.
1051371 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 1051371: 1050001
--
1050001: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo
Control: retitle -1 Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
Simon pointed out that this bug is not yet ready to act on, which was very
helpful. Thank you. However, presumably the buildds will be /usr-merged
at some point in the not-too-distant future, and we do need to decide what
to do af
Processing control commands:
> retitle -1 Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters
Bug #1051371 [debian-policy] debian-policy: stop referring to specific paths in
scripts shebang examples
Changed Bug title to 'Post-/usr-merge paths for script interpreters' from
'debian-policy: stop referrin
20 matches
Mail list logo
