On Tue, 5 May 2009 17:36:02 +0200 md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by > prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a > standalone /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth > mentioning does it (not Ubuntu, not Fedora, not SuSE). > > I know that Debian supports this, but I also know that maintaning > forever large changes to packages for no real gain sucks. > > So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone > /usr? > If you do, please provide a detailed real-world use case. > A partial list of invalid reasons is: > - "I heard that this was popular in 1998" > - "it's a longstanding tradition to support this" > - "it's really useful on my 386 SX with a 40 MB hard disk" > This thread has been going on for quite some time without any insight into what the actual problem with a separate /usr might be. Could you please elaborate? The only issues I can think of are hard links and atomic renames. Though I can't think of any use-case where you would need this between /usr and some place outside /usr. Cheers, harry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature