On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:18:51PM +0200, Manuel Menal wrote: > Thomas Schwinge wrote: > >I strongly suggest to remove the '/usr -> .' symlink from the Debian > >GNU/Hurd system. Having this symlink (and having no /usr anymore, > >eventually) is suited for the GNU system, but not for Debian. > > This has been discussed at lengths. The compromise is to have the > /usr -> . symlink as an *option* with the default being a separate /usr.
That may be true for crosshurd installations, but it is certainly not for installations using the K* series. At least, I did not yet find an obvious way to disable the symlink. > Is there really something wrong with that? I see no reason to forbid > those of us that want this symlink to have it. The Debian system is not really prepared to handle that case. Having the '/usr -> .' symlink might not be that intrusive; having a '/X11R6 -> .' symlink is, as I pointed out in my previous mail. I don't see any logic in unifying '/' and '/usr/', but not '/X11R6/' at the same time. > every Debian GNU/Hurd package should be built on a machine with a > separate /usr. Yes. > But that's only for builders, not users. I've never seen > any cases where properly-built packages caused problems with '/usr' -> . > symlink, except what happened with 'nano' a few months ago, when it > shipped both '/bin/nano' and '/usr/bin/nano' (the second being a symlink > to the first), which resulted into a recursive symlink. But this is rare > and easy enough to fix. Did you see many other cases ? No, but I didn't have a deeper look. Regards, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
