Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
with the possible
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Ext2 direntry is 8bytes plus filename (or onlined symlinks, which you have
a lot on /usr/lib). In my case 54bytes per entry.
Me bad - the symlinks are inlined in the inodes of course.
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only reason we don't have it is because of petty bickering and
politics between the FHS folks (several years ago).
That seems a good description of the FHS in general...
-Miles
--
In New York, most people don't have cars, so if you want to kill a
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
I wanted my
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: Last time I installed Debian
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:47, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/ on LVM allows for snapshot backups which are the most convenient method
of backup.
Except that the kernel freezes the device because the DM lock and
device node updating deadlock.
Might work with udev or
hoi :)
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:45:32PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?
well, it would be against the FHS, I think.
The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
--
Martin Waitz
signature.asc
Description: Digital
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things,
I disagree. Why is it
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and having
the same
Martin Waitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?
well, it would be against the FHS, I think.
The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
GNU project stuff also uses libexec (by default; I don't know if that
location gets
[Martin Waitz]
The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it
exists.
Well, the reason */libexec exists is to avoid overloading the meaning
of */lib to include things other than libraries. Just as /sbin was
invented (way back in the day) to stop overloading /etc with things
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?
Debian strives to follow the FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs), and
this standard does not include /usr/libexec.
See also http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=146023,
which mentions the use of
Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know if there's an argument for it other than clarity and
warm fuzzies.
Not that there is anything wrong with warm fuzzies. I prefer that to
a file hierarchy layout that gives me the chills.
[I personally think that if a good idea is against the
* Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050509 03:07]:
Well, the reason */libexec exists is to avoid overloading the meaning
of */lib to include things other than libraries. Just as /sbin was
invented (way back in the day) to stop overloading /etc with things
other than config files.
I think
Martin Waitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
It reduces search times in libraries, which is important.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things,
I disagree. Why is it
On Monday 09 May 2005 17:17, Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In principle, there could be files which can be used as both a shared
library and an internal binary. Where would you put such files?
Anything that's a shared object has to be in a directory that ldconfig knows
about.
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and having
the same
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:39:10AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better
hoi :)
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:38:02AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
It reduces search times in libraries, which is important.
well, /usr/lib is not _that_ crowded.
Any sane filesystem should handle that many
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make any
difference to a modern GNU linker on a modern filesystem, unless
you have thousands or millions of them.
Why? Is there magic now?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make any
difference to a modern GNU linker on a modern filesystem, unless
you have thousands or millions of them.
Why?
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make any
difference to a modern GNU linker on a modern filesystem, unless
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:33:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You asked why the GNU linker, which does not need to be 'ls' and does
not need to look at the list of files in any directory, scaled well
with the size of the directory. That's the question I answered.
How does ld determine that -latoheun will
ma, 2005-05-09 kello 14:39 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG kirjoitti:
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You asked why the GNU linker, which does not need to be 'ls' and does
not need to look at the list of files in any directory, scaled well
with the size of the directory. That's
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I may be completely wrong here, but as far as I understand, ld turns
-lfoo into /usr/lib/libfoo.a and then uses that if it can find it. It
might look into some other directories as well, and it might fill in foo
into some other patterns than lib%s.a,
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc?
I don't see a semantic difference between /bin and
Thomas, please read
http://www.nl.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-resources.en.html#s-mailing-lists-rules
about not sending Cc's unless people explicitly ask to be copied.
(Mail-Followup-To is non-standard and badly supported, and also
unnecessary. Any decent mail user agent can deal with
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc?
I don't see a
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I may be completely wrong here, but as far as I understand, ld turns
-lfoo into /usr/lib/libfoo.a and then uses that if it can find it. It
might look into some other directories as well, and it might fill
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which doesn't? Minix maybe. Even ext2/3 has hashes for dir if you
format it that way.
Is this the Debian default for installation?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
semantic significance at
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
semantic significance at
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs / distinction,
then there is no before /usr is mounted.
But then you have a minimum 1-5GB /. That sucks.
Why, exactly? I know people think it's obvious, but the lack of
stated reasons
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs / distinction,
then there is no before /usr is mounted.
But then you have a minimum 1-5GB /. That sucks.
Why, exactly? I know people
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
Why is that?
- a larger FS has more chance of failing so you risk having a fully
broken system more often
And two file systems have even more chance. One read only
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and having
the same directory names used across distributions provides
101 - 140 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
