Zac Medico posted on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 01:07:21 -0800 as excerpted: > On 12/07/2017 12:37 AM, Duncan wrote: >> Zac Medico posted on Fri, 31 May 2013 22:49:02 -0700 as excerpted: >> >>> On 05/31/2013 10:36 PM, Duncan wrote: >>>> As in subject, is portage bin/usr-bin merge safe? >>>> >>>> It appears most of my clashing files are /usr/bin/* -> /bin/* >>>> symlinks. >>> >>> I haven't tried it, but it should work just fine. Portage has always >>> supported directory symlinks like these. I haven't heard any recent >>> complaints regarding them. >> >> As the attribution says, I'm resurrecting a thread from 2013... >> >> I set up a merged /usr/bin -> /bin (and sbin -> bin, and /usr -> .) >> soon after that, with very few problems, usually ebuilds doing >> unconditional rms in postinst or the like, until recently... >> >> Something recently changed, as now I'm having many more problems, so >> far with four packages, glibc (!!), coreutils (!!), nano, and shadow, >> installing symlinks that ultimately point to themselves. >> > I think the sort order of your root directory changed for some reason. > The order that readdir returns filenames depends on the filesystem > implementation: > > http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/readdir.3.html
That's... strange. Back in 2013 might have still been on reiserfs, but I've been on btrfs for awhile now. I wonder what might make it change order? Tho I /did/ somewhat recently upgrade ssds, thus copying the /bin dir and /usr -> . symlink, among other root entries. Obviously back when I first setup the /usr -> . symlink it was the newest entry. Maybe if I delete and recreate it so it's definitely the newest entry again... I have no idea how long it might have been before I came up with the idea to try that on my own. Thanks! I'll (gingerly, I don't like major system breakage!) see if it makes a difference. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
