Re: possible mass-filing of bugs: many shared library packages contain binaries in usr/bin
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 11:09:06PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Having /usr makes as much sense as a separate X11R6, KDE or other
> > tree.
> Depending on where you are coming from.
Well, sure ;)
> > On a side note, this might be used in a later Hurd-specific packaging
> > system
> There doesn't have to be anything Hurd-specific about that. Linux has
> caught up in this respect already and Al Viro is doing the same thing
> in Linux 2.5.
Ah, interesting. Will Linux have notification "messages" (well, whatever
they can use, maybe icky signals) for directory and file changes?
> > that allows you to have each package unpack in a seperate
> > directory tree, and just set/remove symlinks to install packages (eg,
> > setting a /packages/foo-1.32 symlink makes /packages/foo-1.32/bin
> > visible under /bin).
> Isn't the purpose of shadowfs that you don't need the symlinks?
Oh, it depends on how you do this. The advantage of a symlink is that it is
easier to uninstall a package temporarily (just remove the symlink, rather
than the whole package directory). Moving directories is only cheap if it
is not across filesystems, but of course that would work as well if you make
it a requirement that the unpack place is on the same fs as the package, so
the operation remains atomar (beside the performance issue). Also,
symlinks work better if multiple users want to install the same (version of
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org firstname.lastname@example.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org email@example.com
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com