On 02/01/2012 09:41 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
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.
Just asking - does a bind mount of /bin instead of a soft link help?