On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:33 AM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xxxxxxx> wrote: > i've got nothing to back this up, but i'm guessing this one is going > to be a little trickier ... mainly because there are multiple packages > that are *expected* to exist in /bin. `bash` (sh) and `coreutils` are > the two major ones that come to mind. > > i expect pacman does not fork out to external processes, and can > handle the switch itself, but it's not as easy as the incremental lib > -> usr/lib update (which affects nothing) ... i expect there will be a > final switcharoo at the end where 2+ packages must all be moved in one > fell swoop. > > Tom? others? i too am curious of the progress or experiences thus far. This was the original proposal: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-March/022625.html>. I just re-read it, noticing that I wrote about the move of /lib that it has "no real risks or downsides". Feel free to point and laugh. I have a patch against pacman which should make it able to deal with /bin/sh being in /usr/bin/, which I think is the only issue before we could make such a move (as pacman does call sh to run post-upgrade scripts and similar). I guess no one is in any hurry to make this move though, people probably want to catch their breath after the /lib move ;-) Cheers, Tom
