> From: Jan Pechanec <Jan.Pechanec at Sun.COM> ... > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Joseph Kowalski wrote: > > >I hope and pray that by the time Nevada becomes Solaris something, that > >no actual files live in /usr/sfw. It would only have symbolic links for > >compatibility purposes. It was an idea that maybe had short-term > >merit, but the world evolved in such a way to make it not such a good idea. > > hi, I would like to repeat my question since this is something I'm > not sure how to solve - is /usr/sfw/bin/openssl link to /usr/bin/openssl > then neccessary or can I not to create it? > > how would that work if /usr/sfw would be just full of symbolic > links? Would it go away completely after some time or would we have to keep > delivering them? > > thanks, Jan.
Well, since this is the first detailed case in the slow death of /usr/sfw, it gets to propose and we get to decide. I think you will need to deliver the link. You certainly will need to deliver the link as long as there is a conflict between the commitment level and the release binding. It could probably be deleted by the rules once such a conflict doesn't exist, but my view is that the link is such low cost that it should be delivered and probably delivered until a project appears in 2027 to remove all the /usr/sfs links. Having them disappear randomly would certainly confuse customers. Until an ARC case or two on this passes, the above is just my opinion. - jek3
