Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>>> Steve Dunham writes:
> SD> This version of the grub package installs stuff in "/share". > I don't know any better place for it, since /sbin/grub will be an > essential system utility, and it requires some arch-independent files > to work correctly. > What if the /usr partition cannot be mounted? I think that /sbin/grub > should still work. > SD> Technically, "/usr/share/grub" would also be inappropriate, > SD> because it is for arch independent files.) > OKUJI and I already had this discussion. There is no such thing as an > `arch-independent file', only files that have the same contents > regardless of the architecture they are installed on. But, by the same argument, we can put all the X shared libraries in "/usr/share/X11/i386-linux". > /share/grub/i386-pc has the same contents, regardless of the > architecture that GRUB is installed on, and so I believe it belongs in > /share. I still don't like the idea of adding a directory to the root for the sake of one package - especially when the argument for using /share instead of /lib is not very strong. > As an aside, GRUB is quite a pathological package, because of its > peculiar relationship to the kernel. LILO is somewhat simpler, but > even it is an exception to the FSSTND and FHS. > If you wish, please take this issue to debian-policy, with a > suggestion of where I should put GRUB's files, and we can debate it > there. As it stands, I'm happy with how things work, and don't see > them as a bug. I really, really don't like the addition of /share to the root directory. One alternative would be a directory under /lib (e.g. /lib/grub) for the pristine copy of stage[12] or in an additional directory under /boot (e.g. have both the copy that is modified by /sbin/grub and the original in /boot). I've cc'd debian-policy, if they don't care, I'll let it slide. Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
