Control: unblock 1051371 by 1050001
Ansgar <ans...@43-1.org> 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).
This is not a correct summary of Ian's proposal. In the message that you
linked, Ian says:
/bin and /lib etc. remain directories (so there is no aliasing). All
actual files are shipped in /usr. / contains compatibility symlinks
pointing into /usr, for those files/APIs/programs where this is needed
(which is far from all of them). Eventualloy, over time, the set of
compatibility links is reduced to a mere handful.
I am absolutely certain that Ian would consider /bin/sh to be one of the
programs for which a compatibility symlink is needed, and one of the
remaining handful of links that would exist indefinitely into the future.
Indeed, he mentions /bin/sh explicitly later in that message.
Given that, I believe Ian's proposal is orthogonal to this bug. For
/bin/sh and /usr/bin/sh, it would create the same aliasing and thus would
create the same question about how to talk about those paths in Policy. I
therefore don't think resolution of this bug blocks on the TC bug.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
