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

Re: / -> /usr symlink

On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:

> Hi,
> 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.

> Note first that this has nothing to do with cross compilation. Secondly, if

I know - my point was that developers may not like patches for hurd
compatibility...(which you address below)

> 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
> possible.

I'm a little concerned it might generate ill-will. I'm sure you can be
diplomatic about it :-)

> 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
> explanation.

I would like to decide on one to recommend. If as you say, the bugs caused
by the symlink are small, then perhaps we should roll with that (and
suggest it to users)
> > [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 :)

wot no angband? I guess I'll have to play nethack :-)


Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo

Steward of the Cambridge Tolkien Society
Selwyn College Computer Support

Reply to: