[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: udev and /usr



On Sep 05, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:

> > They are currently providing most of the manpower for developing udev
> > and the related infrastructure so this is pretty much the practical
> > effect, yes.
> So what, you think this means we don't have any right to object when they
> design things wrong?
No, I mean that after objecting and failing to have my objections
accepted, I have no other means of steering development in a different
direction.
I objected, multiple times, alone, and then started a discussion here.
What did *you* do other than accusing me?

> Violating the FHS is incompetent by definition and any resulting design is
> unreliable.
Maybe you were not involved with FSSTND and FHS development at the time,
but in multiple occasions it was modified to reflect what distributions
actually wanted to implement of previous versions of the specification,
like when /usr/libexec and /var/state were added and then removed again
(it was about 1997).
I was following FHS development at the time and I remember it.

> That bug was reopened as a result of a conversation I had with Martin and
> Scott in response to this precise thread.  I was hoping Scott would be able
> to shed some light on the motivation for this goofy design, but he was just
> as much in the dark regarding the reason this was added and wasn't aware of
> the FHS problem that had been introduced.
But he was aware of other /usr-related issues in udev, and his answer
was that Ubuntu does not support standalone /usr filesystems.

> Do you have a reference to a thread where someone upstream has acknowledged
> the existence of this FHS bug and proceeded to implement this anyway?
There was at least
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/14384 , but most
discussions happened on IRC where everybody else involved explained in
no uncertain terms that they do not want to support a standalone /usr
filesystem.

> You most certainly are arguing for a side, and it's not for the side that
> you have an obligation to as a Debian developer.
I love when people know what I think better than I do...

-- 
ciao,
Marco

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: