On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:42:01AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > William Hubbs posted on Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:40:49 -0500 as excerpted: > > > >> After the testing period is over, I'm confused about why we should > >> support both layouts. With separate usr without initramfs gone, the usr > >> merge is transparent to end users because of the symbolic links in /, so > >> there should be no reason to keep supporting both layouts once we are > >> satisfied with the migration process. > > > > Because we're Gentoo, and gentooers tend to have rather strong opinions > > on what sort of choices we should be able to make about things like that. > > > > I'm trying to think of whether offering a choice really costs us > anything. The main issue I see here is that the compatibility > symlinks only go one way. > > #!/bin/bash will work whether you've done a usr merge or not > #!/usr/bin/bash will probably only work if you've done the usr merge > #!/usr/bin/python will work whether you've done a usr merge or not > #!/bin/python will probably only work if you've done the usr merge That's correct, but you shouldn't be using shebangs like the second and fourth ones now either. The standard shebangs (the first and third ones) are fully compatible pre and post usr merge.
If people decide to start using non-standard shebangs like your second and fourth ones above, that is wrong and should be stopped. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
