On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:48:24 +1000, Karl Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:06:08 +0930 > Rusty Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Note that such symlinking doesn't require FHS changes; when FHS says a > > directory should contain something, that something may be a symlink to > > elsewhere. > > Hi rusty, > Are you saying "If /usr is mandated by FHS, it can be a symlink to /", > or "If /usr is mandated by FHS, it must be a directory and can > optionally contain nothing but symlinks"?
Both. Anywhere the FHS says "foo must exist", foo can be a symlink. > General question (for all): Would it be worth us changing the /usr > section to say it may be a symlink to / under certain circumstances? > kk No, because this applies globally to the FHS. Putting it explicitly in one place would probably make things more confusing... Cheers, Rusty. _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
