Bug#759410: Should not install /usr/bin/rm conflicting with /bin/rm (blocks /bin -> /usr/bin)

2019-05-28 Thread Francois Marier
On 2019-05-28 at 18:26:31, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > safe-rm also breaks a stretch --merged-usr chroot, found while testing > with piuparts stretch->buster upgrades with --merged-usr enabled. > And it seems to be the only package causing outright havoc in such a > scenario. So if I understand

Bug#759410: Should not install /usr/bin/rm conflicting with /bin/rm (blocks /bin -> /usr/bin)

2019-05-28 Thread Andreas Beckmann
Followup-For: Bug #759410 Control: found -1 0.12-2 Hi, safe-rm also breaks a stretch --merged-usr chroot, found while testing with piuparts stretch->buster upgrades with --merged-usr enabled. And it seems to be the only package causing outright havoc in such a scenario. While a proper solution

Bug#759410: Should not install /usr/bin/rm conflicting with /bin/rm (blocks /bin -> /usr/bin)

2018-05-29 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:07:00 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: > Package: safe-rm > Severity: normal > > [As discussed at DebConf 14.] > > I'm working on making it possible to merge /bin and /sbin into /usr/bin > and /usr/sbin respectively. As a first step towards that, I'm planning > to propose a

Bug#759410: Should not install /usr/bin/rm conflicting with /bin/rm (blocks /bin -> /usr/bin)

2016-11-07 Thread Francois Marier
On 2016-10-25 at 09:12:30, Sven Joachim wrote: > >> In order to fix this while preserving safe-rm's default of automatic > >> protection on installation, safe-rm will need to divert and replace > >> /bin/rm. This will require quite a bit of care to do safely; see dash's > >> maintainer scripts

Bug#759410: Should not install /usr/bin/rm conflicting with /bin/rm (blocks /bin -> /usr/bin)

2016-10-25 Thread Sven Joachim
Control: severity -1 critical On 2016-10-23 01:24 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > Control: severity -1 grave > > On Aug 27, Josh Triplett wrote: > >> In order to fix this while preserving safe-rm's default of automatic >> protection on installation, safe-rm will need to

Bug#759410: Should not install /usr/bin/rm conflicting with /bin/rm (blocks /bin -> /usr/bin)

2016-10-22 Thread Marco d'Itri
Control: severity -1 grave On Aug 27, Josh Triplett wrote: > In order to fix this while preserving safe-rm's default of automatic > protection on installation, safe-rm will need to divert and replace > /bin/rm. This will require quite a bit of care to do safely; see

Bug#759410: Should not install /usr/bin/rm conflicting with /bin/rm (blocks /bin - /usr/bin)

2014-08-31 Thread Ben Hutchings
I seem to remember there being a policy requirement that there are no name collisions among the standard executable directories (/bin, /usr/bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin, /usr/games). However I can't find that now. Ben, -- Ben Hutchings Q. Which is the greater problem in the world today, ignorance or

Bug#759410: Should not install /usr/bin/rm conflicting with /bin/rm (blocks /bin - /usr/bin)

2014-08-31 Thread Josh Triplett
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 02:34:27PM -0700, Ben Hutchings wrote: I seem to remember there being a policy requirement that there are no name collisions among the standard executable directories (/bin, /usr/bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin, /usr/games). However I can't find that now. No such policy

Bug#759410: Should not install /usr/bin/rm conflicting with /bin/rm (blocks /bin - /usr/bin)

2014-08-26 Thread Josh Triplett
Package: safe-rm Severity: normal [As discussed at DebConf 14.] I'm working on making it possible to merge /bin and /sbin into /usr/bin and /usr/sbin respectively. As a first step towards that, I'm planning to propose a Debian Policy change to prohibit conflicts between /bin/$foo and