On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 ;-) heh, yeah i'm sure you're right about that :-) this might be slightly hacky, but what if packages were moved one at a time, and each time the `filesystem` package grew symlinks from `/bin/{some-binary}` -> `/usr/bin/{some-binary}`? then, when /bin has nothing but symlinks, you can upgrade the filesystem package, dropping all the link and replacing `/bin` with symlinks to `/usr/bin`. it would be a little ugly, with filesystem absobing some 200+ links, but nothing work break in the interim (i think ;-). -- C Anthony
