> But stow does this, it stores it in the file-system. So, if the idea is to use stowfs instead of stow. I think that the only reason to use stow is to keep compatibility for non-hurd systems.
Maybe I was unclear, stowfs and stow store this information the same way. As files/directories in the file-system without any external database backend. Mixing stow and stowfs isn't a good idea I think. stowfs and stut are not comparable, stowfs doesn't stores any database information. That's what stut does. It takes the pkg information and stores it on /var/db/ and manages it. So stut uses stow (or stowfs) to manage the package contents. Ah, but stowfs does store it. It stores it in the file system, as part of the file-system. The whole idea was to move away from a central database, and store this information with each extracted binary package, and then have stowfs gather this information into one dynamic point. Cheers. _______________________________________________ gnu-system-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-system-discuss
