On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 05:31:29PM +0100, Ludovic Court�s wrote: > I agree this would be an easy way to fix the problem, but I also think that > there's nothing wrong with having /X11R6. I think this kind of separation is > quite useful (unlike /usr) because the user knows, for instance, that a lib > in /X11R6/lib is for X clients and that programs in /X11R6/bin are all either > X clients or programs related to the X server.
Without discussing all the pros and cons of filesystem layout etc, I would say that so much is sure: That most users don't care zip about where the libraries are or what a library is in the first case, as long as everything works :) Anyway, with shadowfs you can provide orthogonal viwes on the filesystem (that is not only a feature of shadowfs, it's a feature at the root of the Hurd), and so you can have one /lib and still have everything related to X in its own directory. In fact, if you unpack each package in /debian/package/NAME/VERSION, you can shadow together whatever packages you want into a single tree. > Also, "rm -rf /X11R6" should > remove eveything related to X... So would rm -fR /debian/package/NAME/VERSION in the above scheme, but the short answer of course is 1. that it is not true (X files are also in /etc, in /share/doc and wherever), and 2. you use dpkg --remove xfree86 anyway. > Does Debian have a policy on the whole directory hierarchy? ;) Yes, it is called the LFS (Linux Filesystem Standard) and most of it works for us pretty well, too (making the L a misnomer :) For the differences, see the GNU coding standard (mainly libexec) and existing implementation (mainly /hurd and /servers). Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de _______________________________________________ Help-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
