Re: Settle for /usr symlink (!) (was: Re: [email@example.com: Hurd bug fix]
On Sun, Mar 07, 1999 at 07:21:06PM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote:
> If you are not using a /usr symlink, and install things in /usr/include,
> it seems appropriate to have a symlink /include -> usr/include for
> compatibility with no-/usr systems.
> This is not to express any opinion about /usr symlink vs not.
I thought of that, but how far does this go? Do we also need a symlink
/shar -> /usr/share? What about the libraries (is /usr/lib searched by now?)
How many of such situations will arise? I just don't know. I am willing to
try my best to make both situations possible, but if we choose one
officially as the default, we can concentrate on that, and fix the other as
And in this case, the missing symlink /include would result into subtle
And, the /usr symlink itself is only ducking. The real challenge is to drop
it sometime later and change the Debian packaging rules. :) But this will be
a long way.
'nuff said. I will let other people comment on this now.
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.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