On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 1:37 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 03:47:25PM +0000, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 7:54 PM Aoife Moloney <amoloney(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Wiki ->
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin
> > >
> >
> > I do not see as part of the plan a process to
> > go through all Fedora packages and identifying
> > binaries in /usr/bin that have the same name
> > as a binary in /usr/sbin (from the same, or
> > different packages) such that the packager
> > (or the multiple packages) will need to
> > coordinate the changes (perhaps by engaging
> > upstream).
>
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin#Scope
> lists 9 packages that was aware of that use usermode.
>
> $ dnf5 repoquery -l $(dnf5 repoquery --whatprovides '/usr/sbin/*' --qf
'%{name}\n') | rg '/usr/s?bin/' | sed -r 's|(.*)/([^/]*)$|\2|' |
sort | uniq -c | rg -w 2
>
> says that /usr/sbin/{makemap,rpcinfo,rpcbind,sestatus,udevadm}
> "shadow" files in /usr/bin. But those are all symlinks, i.e. they will
> need just to be dropped to prevent a FTBFS. I added this list with
> four packages to the Scope section.
Thanks, but I think the query does not produce
all possible results, as I know for a fact that there is
a package (exabgp) that has both a /usr/sbin/exabgp-healthcheck
and a (different) /usr/bin/exabgp-healthcheck file
(which is why I prompted my query, as I expect
there might be others (I plan to fix exabgp)).
Indeed. With both dnf-5 and dnf5, the inner repoquery doesn't list exabgp.
Either a bug or I'm doing something wrong.
Zbyszek