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

Re: / -> /usr symlink


On Sat, Jan 16, 1999 at 12:14:37AM +0000, M.C. Vernon wrote:
> On 15 Jan 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I think we should patch the small number of packages that have a real
> > problem, and move on.  We can create Hurd-specific patches for them,
> > and submit them for consideration in general.  I'm happy if the
> > general packages just did [ ! -l /usr ] or whatever.  I don't have any
> > interest in trying to tell the ae package that they should not create
> > /usr/bin/vi, but I do think we could say "please don't create
> > /usr/bin/vi on Debian GNU/Hurd" and make it with a suitably generic
> > test.
> I don't think you have grounds to say "small"[1].

Actually, he has. Because you have /bin and /usr/bin in your path, it would
not make sense to use up both, so this is a rare case. Same for /sbin. For
/lib, a similar argument applies.

I have run the command John T. sent to this list, but on my Linux system.

I have not find more problems than the two already known (ae, rmt in cpio).
I think the number of problems can be small, though subtle.

> Part of the problem is
> that we (as hurd developers) do not have the weight (i.e. a production
> system) to throuw around to try and get a number of linux packages patched
> so they cross-compile neatly when our only justification is philosophy.

Note first that this has nothing to do with cross compilation. Secondly, if
the Debian developer doesn't like our patch, we can always fork a new
sourece package, for example if Dale Scheetz, the maintainer of ae, doesn't
like the patch, we can fork ae-hurd source package for hurd-i386 only.

This does increase our workload somewhat, so it should be avoided if

> I see the future of hurd as moving away from unix/linux, but not just yet.
> To being with, we must try and get lots of stuff ported, and implement all
> the desirable features in hurd (I want to re-implement mach as well, but
> that's another matter for some years off) first. Then we are in a position
> to move on. It's just a case of making sure we do move on - otherwise hurd
> will be 'just another linux'. It takes a bit of vision, and a lot of
> discipline, to do things like remove the symlink, with the intention of
> putting it back in the future, but I think it is the best way forwards.
> Gently gently - we want to win linux developers over, not alienate them

This is true, indeed. The symlink issue is probably to small to worry about
(and I would like the discussion to stop this week :). I will make sure that
BOTH are supported, with or without symlink. The installation script will
ask which way the user wants it. There will be no default but a small

> [1]: there are 2000+debian packages. Have you checked them all? My system
> only has 526 on it - about 25%

Me too, but let us only worry about the free packages for now, ok :)


"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."        Debian GNU/Linux        finger brinkmd@ 
Marcus Brinkmann                   http://www.debian.org    master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de                        for public  PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/       PGP Key ID 36E7CD09

Reply to: