On Jan 25, Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> wrote:

> 2. an arrangement where all regular files that have traditionally been
>    in /bin, /sbin, /lib and /lib64 are physically located in /usr,
>    with /bin etc. becoming "symlink farms" containing symlinks like
>    /bin/sh -> /usr/bin/sh, /lib/ld-linux.so.2 -> /usr/lib/ld-linux.so.2
>    and so on
>    2a. in one version of this, only those files that traditionally
>        existed in the rootfs have symlinks, so that /bin/sh -> /usr/bin/sh
>        exists but /bin/perl -> /usr/bin/perl does not
>    2b. in another version of this, every file in /usr/bin, /usr/sbin,
>        /usr/lib is represented in the symlink farm, so that
>        /bin/perl -> /usr/bin/perl exists
This would severely reduce the usefulness of sharing /usr between 
different systems (or doing snapshots, etc...), so it would require 
a lot of work for no significant benefits.
Also, as is has been discussed, if the /usr/doc/ transition was 
representative then this would probably take many years.
Also, this would have to deal (in maintainer scripts?) with the fact 
that most systems installed in the last few years have alraedy 
implemented option 1. More complexity for little benefits.
Also, no other distribution considered this.

> I think we should choose wording to vote on such that if we vote yes,
> it is clear which of these layouts are consistent with that resolution,
> and which are not.
This is a good idea.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to