On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:58:34 -0800, "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 2/17/06, "Martin v. L=F6wis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> > On 2/16/06, Stephen J. Turnbull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>/usr/share often is on a different mount; that's the whole rationale
>> >>for /usr/share.
>> >
>> > I don't think I've worked at a place where something like that was
>> > done for at least 10 years. Isn't this argument outdated?
>>
>> It still *is* the rationale for putting things into /usr/share,
>> even though I agree that probably nobody actually does that.
>>
>> That, in turn, is because nobody is so short of disk space that
>> you really *have* to share /usr/share across architectures, and
>> because trying to do the sharing still causes problems (e.g.
>> what if the packaging systems of different architectures
>> all decide to put the same files into /usr/share?)
>
>I believe /usr/share was intended only to be used for
>platform-independent files (e.g. docs, or .py files).
>
linuxbase.org agrees with you, via ref to
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html
and more specifically
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRSHAREARCHITECTUREINDEPENDENTDATA
>Another reason why nobody does this is because NFS is slow and
>unreliable. It's no fun when your NFS server goes down and your
>machine hangs because someone wanted to save 50 MB per workstation by
>sharing it.
>
Sometimes a separate mount could be a separate hard disk in the same box, I
guess.
Apparently it's read-only, so I guess it could also temporarily be a cdrom even.
Regards,
Bengt Richter
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
