Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms
Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> writes:
> I've asked this before - I might be very wrong, but I was under the
> impression that having both /bin/foo and /usr/bin/foo (which is the
> example mentioned) was already considered RC-buggy and needed fixing?
> Is that not the case?
This is already the case. Policy 10.1:
To support merged-/usr systems, packages must not install files in
both /path and /usr/path. For example, a package must not install both
/bin/example and /usr/bin/example.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: