> (Maybe give a more useful, informational subject line?)
Too late now, lest another thread start.
> > But even then, wouldn't it be better to use "./configure --prefix=/"
> > so everything stays where pcre-config knows it was put?
>
> Paul, Remember that LFS/BLFS is targeted towards learning how to put
> together a Linux system.
Certainly agreed, that's why I asked. LFS has done more than anything
to help me "climb the mountain".
> I agree that from a practical standpoint that there is no reason to
> keep /lib, /bin, and /sbin separate, but leaving that in does
> demonstrate some techniques that may be useful to some users.
So far I've just taken this as a historical artifact of the small disk
days, but this time as I was zipping thru, I had a "Wait! Why?" moment.
I'm vaguely aware there are these esoteric, cloudy configurations that
might share FStree branches, so maybe it isn't just an artifact.
I'm looking for reasons for separating /usr. Do "containers" do that?
I suppose I can see that a DMZ server might want to do that for /lib,
/bin, /sbin, /usr, getting those from the "safe side".
> Removing support for a separate partition should be pretty simple.
> Just create symlinks from /{lib,usr,sbin} to /usr/{lib,usr,sbin} and
> remove a few mv and ln commands. Anyone who has built LFS/BLFS should
> be able to do that without many problems.
Yes, but I don't stray far from the book unless I'm sure I understand
the issue. It's not so much the "how" but the "why". And why not
--prefix=/ and keep the pcre-config honest? I don't understand that.
--
Paul Rogers
[email protected]
Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates."
(I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-)
--
http://www.fastmail.com - The professional email service
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
