On Thursday 27 December 2012 13:49:50 Rich Freeman wrote: > I think moving everything into /usr is a good idea. However:
i don't think it's hard to support both. the majority of packages just want
to relocate shared libs into / from /usr and that's easy with one line:
gen_usr_ldscript -a foo
put a knob into the func itself (perhaps a var set in the profile's
make.defaults) and you've addressed more than 50% of the problem.
very few packages actually install into /bin and /sbin, and i don't mind a
USE=sep-usr flag for them (relevant since i also see that i'm maintaining most
of those packages).
> 3. Moving just a bunch of libraries to /usr and nothing else is dumb.
> It brings none of the benefits of the /usr move
sure
> and gets rid of all
> of the benefits of complying with FHS (like systems booting fine with
> a separate /usr - and yes I know this is already "broken" despite the
> fact that it works just fine for 99% of the people running in this
> configuration).
strictly speaking, i don't think FHS mandates sep /usr be supported. it's
fairly easy to read a merged /usr setup as being FHS compliant.
> But, until the Council decides that we're really doing a coordinated
> /usr move, then let's leave things alone. Sticking stuff in random
> locations per the whim of individual maintainers will cause nothing
> but trouble.
aka today's status quo
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
