From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF493139083 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:14:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CA501E101D; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:14:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blaine.gmane.org (unknown [195.159.176.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87680E101C for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:14:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eMv4I-00016b-11 for gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 13:14:22 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Is portage (/usr)/bin-merge safe? Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:14:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <51A98B4E.8090601@gentoo.org> <6c2ee2b3-88df-e943-61d5-d1e846789ab1@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org User-Agent: Pan/0.143 (Quaint little villages here and there; 75a9fd3d2) X-Archives-Salt: 21abae73-497b-4a94-9233-820b8b16cfed X-Archives-Hash: ed2daa7dfaadbb3484e881c1cdeba379 Zac Medico posted on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 01:07:21 -0800 as excerpted: > On 12/07/2017 12:37 AM, Duncan wrote: >> Zac Medico posted on Fri, 31 May 2013 22:49:02 -0700 as excerpted: >> >>> On 05/31/2013 10:36 PM, Duncan wrote: >>>> As in subject, is portage bin/usr-bin merge safe? >>>> >>>> It appears most of my clashing files are /usr/bin/* -> /bin/* >>>> symlinks. >>> >>> I haven't tried it, but it should work just fine. Portage has always >>> supported directory symlinks like these. I haven't heard any recent >>> complaints regarding them. >> >> As the attribution says, I'm resurrecting a thread from 2013... >> >> I set up a merged /usr/bin -> /bin (and sbin -> bin, and /usr -> .) >> soon after that, with very few problems, usually ebuilds doing >> unconditional rms in postinst or the like, until recently... >> >> Something recently changed, as now I'm having many more problems, so >> far with four packages, glibc (!!), coreutils (!!), nano, and shadow, >> installing symlinks that ultimately point to themselves. >> > I think the sort order of your root directory changed for some reason. > The order that readdir returns filenames depends on the filesystem > implementation: > > http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/readdir.3.html That's... strange. Back in 2013 might have still been on reiserfs, but I've been on btrfs for awhile now. I wonder what might make it change order? Tho I /did/ somewhat recently upgrade ssds, thus copying the /bin dir and /usr -> . symlink, among other root entries. Obviously back when I first setup the /usr -> . symlink it was the newest entry. Maybe if I delete and recreate it so it's definitely the newest entry again... I have no idea how long it might have been before I came up with the idea to try that on my own. Thanks! I'll (gingerly, I don't like major system breakage!) see if it makes a difference. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman