Once upon a time, Emanuel Rietveld <codehotter(a)gmail.com> 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.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.