On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 1:37 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 03:47:25PM +0000, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 7:54 PM Aoife Moloney <amoloney@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Wiki -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin > > > > > > > I do not see as part of the plan a process to > > go through all Fedora packages and identifying > > binaries in /usr/bin that have the same name > > as a binary in /usr/sbin (from the same, or > > different packages) such that the packager > > (or the multiple packages) will need to > > coordinate the changes (perhaps by engaging > > upstream). > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin#Scope > lists 9 packages that was aware of that use usermode. > > $ dnf5 repoquery -l $(dnf5 repoquery --whatprovides '/usr/sbin/*' --qf '%{name}\n') | rg '/usr/s?bin/' | sed -r 's|(.*)/([^/]*)$|\2|' | sort | uniq -c | rg -w 2 > > says that /usr/sbin/{makemap,rpcinfo,rpcbind,sestatus,udevadm} > "shadow" files in /usr/bin. But those are all symlinks, i.e. they will > need just to be dropped to prevent a FTBFS. I added this list with > four packages to the Scope section. Thanks, but I think the query does not produce all possible results, as I know for a fact that there is a package (exabgp) that has both a /usr/sbin/exabgp-healthcheck and a (different) /usr/bin/exabgp-healthcheck file (which is why I prompted my query, as I expect there might be others (I plan to fix exabgp)). -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
