[pacman-dev] [PATCH 0/8] remove symlink support

[Dave Reisner]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:32:49AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 29/04/13 02:33, Dave Reisner wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:41:50AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >> On 27/04/13 10:00, Andrew Gregory wrote:
> >>> Two weeks with no objections, so here is the full patchset.  Several of the
> >>> tests should be redundant now, but I left them in with updated rules anyway,
> >>> just in case.
> >>
> >> Thanks - patches look good to me.  I made a couple of comments on them.
> >>
> >> What we also need to figure out is the upgrade path here.  There are
> >> packages in the Arch repos with files in /lib/...  relying on the
> >> symlink at the moment.  They will create conflicts after these patches
> >> (which is fine), but we need to make sure they will upgrade fine to the
> >> fixed versions.  (They might already - but needs tested.)
> >>
> >>
> >> @Dan, @Dave (or anyone else...):  Do you intend to comment on this
> >> proposal?  Even an "ack" would be appreciated here.
> >>
> > 
> > As I mentioned to you on IRC yesterday, I'm still concerned that this is
> > going to break my install pretty hard with /bin and /sbin symlinked to
> > usr/bin. I've had this running for the past year or so without too many
> > problems.
> > 
> 
> Is that an objection?   Every time there is a package in Arch with a
> file in /usr/bin and a symlink in /bin your system gets "broken".  I'll
> also point out that you could only do this for that period of time
> because you were using the git version of pacman.

Ok, that's fair. I suppose it's not really an objection -- I realize
that I'm the unique snowflake here and simplifying the code like this is
preferrable.

> Anyway, I'm guessing there are two problems here:
> 
> 1) Your local database does not match what is on your filesystem.  As
> our conflict checking assumes the local db to be right, this will
> probably miss conflicts.  So we need to correct the local db for anyone
> who is currently using this "feature".   This falls into the category of
> figuring out an upgrade path.
> 
> 2) When the local db is right, programs with files in /bin will cause
> conflicts until Arch officially does that set up.  That I do not
> consider a pacman problem and you will just need to add them to your
> rebuild list for this setup.  I'd say this is not a pacman issue.

Yep, I agree with this. So, +1 from me overall.

d