On 02/01/2012 09:41 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Emanuel Rietveld <codehotter@xxxxxxxxx> said: >> On 02/01/2012 01:32 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote: >>> To-be-installed files obviously have no on-disk fingerprints, so it >>> wont work for initial installation. So yes, those "fake" compatibility >>> provides are needed. Strictly speaking, compatibility provides would >>> be needed for ALL the moved files, not just /bin, as it's technically >>> perfectly legal for a package to depend on an arbitrary path in >>> /lib[64], not just /[s]bin. >>> >>> - Panu - >> >> Would it be possible to leave out these provides and fix each individual >> package to require in the new path instead? > > It isn't practical to "fix" every package that requires /bin/sh. > > There sure seems to be a lot of uncertainty for a "feature" that is > supposedly ready to land. Just asking - does a bind mount of /bin instead of a soft link help? -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
