Ansgar <ans...@43-1.org> 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 stay first, but dropped > at some later point? What about /bin/perl, /bin/zsh, /bin/env, ...? Oh, okay, I see what you're syaing now. This is a bit beyond the scope of the areas of Policy touched by Luca's proposal, but I can see why it would indeed arise under Ian's proposal. We've introduced new /bin interfaces for every binary in /usr/bin, and if we went down that path we'd remove most of those interfaces again. That is indeed an argument for (c) for *most* things, just not the areas touched by this diff (with the possible exception of /bin/csh; I'm not sure if that would qualify for an exception or not, these days). So yes, I agree that the resolution of this bug would significantly affect what we want to say in Policy about /usr-merge in general, even if not what we say about /bin/sh. I still don't feel like we need to wait for the TC bug to be resolved, since there is a standing TC decision to make /bin a symlink to /usr/bin and we can always change our wording later if that decision changes, but we need to wait for the buildd /usr-merge anyway, so either way I don't think we're ready to merge patches for this bug right now. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
