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

Re: heads up

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@kemisten.nu> writes:

>    It would be easy to change /usr; we would need to have shadow
>    translators, make existing packages install (which is trivial with
>    the /usr->/ symlink), and so forth.
> We don't have a /usr -> / symlink anymore.  It is optional, and the
> default is to create a seperate /usr directory, and only time you can
> choose to use it is when you install a new crosshurd which isn't done
> by many users.

Please keep track of the conversation and take note of what I say
before you reject it.  We were discussing not what we have now, but
what we could do in Debian.  And as I said, we need shadow
translators.  Once we have them, we could create /usr->/ with little

>    What kind of redesign of the .deb format would you like?  (You do
>    know that .deb is just ar, right?)
> .deb is not "just ar".  Removing pre/post install/uninstall scripts
> would be a good start since you can't run them if you are a
> translator.  Then removing dpkg could be a nice second.

Let's change this around.  What problem are you trying to solve?
Packaging formats are more than lists of files; saying "remove
maintainer scripts" because you want a pure list of files gets you to
a pure list of files, but how does it solve the problems which
maintainer scripts are there to solve?

>    What sort of translator do you imagine for /share/info?
> /share/info/dir being a translator that always provides a updated dir
> entry for info readers to use.  Put a info page into /share/info and
> viola, a entry in /share/info/dir pops up.

This would be easy to arrange in a Hurd-specific installer, and Debian
would be happy to include one.

>    I think these are easy.  You just give the right patch, and say
>    "this provides a very nice feature on GNU/Hurd" and you're done.
>    We have not had much problem in this regard.
> Sure, and that is why we have a nice warm flame war about /hurd each
> year right (although, always from people who have no clue about the
> issues involved)?

We haven't had one for years, actually.

Reply to: