From: Elias P. <pip...@ic...> - 2016-08-29 17:32:38
|
> On 29 Aug 2016, at 19:17, Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> wrote: > >> * Daniel Jour <qna...@tz...> [2016-08-28 23:55:18 +0200]: >> >>> pwd is also a shell built-in, so full path is necessary. >> >> Hm, I understand why pwd may give (in case of symbolic links) a >> different result as a non-builtin pwd. Why do we need the physical >> (not logical, i.e. without the symlinks) path, though? >> >> As for /bin/pwd ... this is a bad idea. /bin (the directory) is about >> to die (ok, that's a bit drastic, I'm reffering to the "usr merge" >> here), and there may be more than one pwd on a single system (this is >> the main reason for this change, because it directly affects me. This >> could be fixed downstream by the currently few affected distributions, >> too. But in the future this might affect every linux distribution that >> uses systemd.) > > this is news to me. > "/bin/cp" going away will break so much stuff that I doubt that anyone > will seriously contemplate this. I think what Daniel is suggesting here goes farther than the current goals of the usr-move camp (see [1] and [2]). Traditionally, /bin and /usr (thus /usr/bin) could live on different partitions and be mounted at different points in time. I believe defenders of the usr-move idea will argue that there’s no good use case for that anymore, so that /usr can just be assumed to be available whenever /bin is assumed to be available. That does not mean that /bin/cp and the like go the way of the dodo but rather that they might be symlinks to /usr/bin/cp, so that as a package maintainer you no longer need to spend time thinking about what has to go in /bin and what can go in /usr/bin instead. As a typical user you would not notice any difference. That said, I chimed in here to save the unit experts some typing, not because I consider myself one (I don’t). Elias [1] http://0pointer.net/blog/projects/the-usr-merge.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove |