Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

[David Seifert <soap@gentoo.org>]

On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <soap@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
> > > > > >   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
> > > > > >   Gentoo follows suit.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with
> > > > > /usr/sbin
> > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P
> > > > 
> > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of
> > > > the
> > > > /usr
> > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there
> > > > really
> > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin.
> > > 
> > > Do I read this correctly?  USE=-split-usr currently means that
> > > /bin,
> > > /sbin, /
> > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory?
> > > 
> > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the
> > > possibility
> > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported.
> > > 
> > > --Dennis
> > 
> > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2-
> > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is
> > obsolete.
> 
> That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE flag.
> 
> For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links
> unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this is not
> possible?
> 

William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the complete
Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO).