Helmut Grohne dixit:
>There is a significant difference here. mksh has an undeclared directory
>vs symlink conflict with base-files about /bin. This is known to cause
>problems.
But there’s handling in installers to deal with that,
and by keeping the files in mksh in the same location,
there won’t be any of the problems with possibly missing
files, symlinks, etc.
(This is worse for mksh because it’s often used as /bin/sh
as well.)
> In principle, what happens with the location is dependent on
>the unpack order though all practical installations will unpack
>base-files before mksh.
See.
>For another dpkg-deb -x mksh.deb / will break a /usr-merged system.
That is not my problem but that of those who decided to use
a filesystem layout that dpkg doesn’t support.
>a different one than the one I requested, but the status quo is not
>something we can continue using as is.
Why? You systemd iconoclasts got your filesystem layout, so
no need to break even more stuff by hurriedly moving stuff
around that doesn’t need to be moved.
I very much disagree with this.
If your only concern is the “undeclared symlink conflict”,
I’d be willing to entertain considering adding a Pre-Depends
and/or changing the top-level “bin” in the data.tar.xz member
of the .deb ar archive to a symbolic link when building for
trixie and newer only. AIUI, this shouldn’t make a difference
when the system is already poetteringised, which, by requirement
for fully upgraded bookworm systems, it is.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Gestern Nacht ist mein IRC-Netzwerk explodiert. Ich hatte nicht damit
gerechnet, darum bin ich blutverschmiert… wer konnte ahnen, daß SIE so
reagier’n… gestern Nacht ist mein IRC-Netzwerk explodiert~~~
(as of 2021-06-15 The MirOS Project temporarily reconvenes on OFTC)
