On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 02:08:34AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 24, Marco d'Itri <m...@linux.it> wrote:
> 
> > > I wanted to open this discussion, but it's not clear whether we're ready
> > > yet to actually merge this patch.
> > We are now: there are less than 10 packages left which have not been 
> > fixed, all of them with patches
> We are down to 4 broken packages left (safe-rm, ksh, elvis-tiny, 
> yp-tools), none of them matter and I do not expect that the maintainers 
> will care until they will be uninstallable.
> How can we move forward with this policy change?

So to recap, Marco proposal is

diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 404dc73..74f0a3b 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -8508,6 +8508,21 @@ fi
          renamed.  If a consensus cannot be reached, <em>both</em>
          programs must be renamed.
        </p>
+
+       <p>
+         To support merged /usr systems, packages must not install a
+         file in <file>/usr/bin</file> with the same name as a file in
+         <file>/bin</file> or a file in <file>/usr/sbin</file> with the
+         same name as a file in <file>/sbin</file>.
+         If such a compatibility symlink is needed then it must be
+         managed in the maintainer scripts in a way that will not break
+         when e.g. <file>/usr/bin</file> and <file>/bin</file> are the
+         same directory.
+         Packages must not install a file in <file>/usr/lib</file> (or
+         one of its subdirectories) with the same name as a file in
+         <file>/lib</file> (or the corresponding subdirectory).
+       </p>
+
        <p>
           Binary executables must not be statically linked with the GNU C
           library, since this prevents the binary from benefiting from

Who is seconding this ?

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballo...@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Reply via email to