Hi Marvin, On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 10:29 -0400, Marvin Renich wrote: > Yet they cannot be counted on to work on Debian now, nor will they on > non- or partially-merged systems. You are saying "the end result is > thus, so the partially merged system must have this property."
No. I am comparing end results from two different proposals. I am not talking about any intermediate state. There is no replacing /bin with a /bin -> /usr/bin symlink ever in the partially-symlink-farmed-root proposal. So you only get the symlinks provided explicitly in /bin by packages and, e.g., dash would ship forever a /bin/sh -> /usr/bin/sh symlink and this would be present on all systems. Only non-required symlinks like for, say, run-parts could be dropped. See [1] about "finishing the transition". [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/02/msg00321.html > Anyone who has a '#!/bin/python3' script now, must ensure the link is > there themselves, and that would not change in the middle of a > symlink-farm transition, nor would it hinder such transition. Yes, but where it would work once the transition to the new proposed layout differs between merged-/usr and partially-symlink-farmed-root (unless one does fully-symlink-farmed-root including symlinks for all binaries in /usr/bin and /usr/sbin, but that would be yet another different proposal). > However, do not use bogus arguments such as the one above to try to > maken your point. It clutters the discussion with needless > debunking. I think you misunderstand how the partially-symlink-farmed-root proposal is different from the merged-/usr proposal. Exactly to avoid such misunderstandings the partially-symlink-farmed-root proposal should not be named merged-/usr. Ansgar