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:

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 

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

Reply via email to