> Nevertheless, I prefer first to have the use case than working on a solution,
> because we may come up with many solutions that don't solve any use case
> problem for anyone.
I encountered perhaps such a use case yesterday:
the consolekit package contained scripts that runs either /sbin/shutdown
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 09:29:30PM +0100, Vladimír Čunát wrote:
> On 02/13/2012 08:45 PM, Michael Raskin wrote:
> >> Currently quite a few packages in nixpkgs have /var/run/current-system/sw
> >> and/or /var/setuid-wrappers hardcoded. Why is it better than having /usr?
> > Although suboptimal, it i
Hi.
On 02/13/2012 08:45 PM, Michael Raskin wrote:
>> Currently quite a few packages in nixpkgs have /var/run/current-system/sw
>> and/or /var/setuid-wrappers hardcoded. Why is it better than having /usr?
> Although suboptimal, it is better than /usr/ because upstream packages
> themselves don't do
Yury G. Kudryashov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Currently quite a few packages in nixpkgs have /var/run/current-system/sw
> and/or /var/setuid-wrappers hardcoded. Why is it better than having /usr?
Sorry, I was going to write a longer e-mail with some use cases, solutions
etc... I'll try to write such a e-
>Currently quite a few packages in nixpkgs have /var/run/current-system/sw
>and/or /var/setuid-wrappers hardcoded. Why is it better than having /usr?
Although suboptimal, it is better than /usr/ because upstream packages
themselves don't do this on their own (yet). Unlike /usr/ references,
these
Hi!
Currently quite a few packages in nixpkgs have /var/run/current-system/sw
and/or /var/setuid-wrappers hardcoded. Why is it better than having /usr?
--
Yury G. Kudryashov,
mailto: ur...@mccme.ru
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
