On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <s...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: > > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: > > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they > > > > > > > > > > > > have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving > > > > > > users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, > > > > > > Gentoo follows suit. > > > > > > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with > > > > > /usr/sbin > > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P > > > > > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of > > > > the > > > > /usr > > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there > > > > really > > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. > > > > > > Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means that > > > /bin, > > > /sbin, / > > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? > > > > > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the > > > possibility > > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported. > > > > > > --Dennis > > > > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2- > > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is > > obsolete. > > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE flag. > > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this is not > possible? >
William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the complete Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO).
