On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 05:35:51PM +0000, Duncan wrote: > Ian Stakenvicius posted on Tue, 03 Jan 2012 12:03:32 -0500 as excerpted: > > > On 03/01/12 11:51 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > >> For example, consider what happens when bash or all of coreutils > >> migrate to /usr. > > > > ..well, when /bin/sh no longer exists then there -will- be issues, > > system-wide, on a massive scale. Unless shells or environments can > > dynamically map that hash-bang to an appropriate interpreter (ie, > > themselves) automatically. > > > > *shudder*.. I don't even want to think about the migration i'd have to > > do to handle that change. > > FWIW, I was reading a review of [was it GOBO Linux?, some distro that's > famous for reorganizing things much like MS does, a program files dir, > etc], and it was said to still contained a /bin with only a couple > symlinks, /bin/bash and /bin/sh, for this very reason. > > Of course fedora uses an initr* so real-root and /usr will be mounted at > the same time, and they're doing a /bin -> /usr/bin symlink at least for > now, so they don't need to worry about that in the short term either. > Longer term, possibly they'll try to get rid of it, but I expect at least > some form of /bin/sh and/or /bin/bash symlink to remain around for quite > some time.
Yes, the symlinks will be around for some time for this reason, but, /bin/sh will point to /usr/bin/bash, so you have the same affect if /usr is not mounted since the symlink can't be resolved. William
pgp9Uybyu95Nd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
