Re: heads up
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> And as I said, we need shadow translators. Once we have them, we
> could create /usr->/ with little fuss.
> We already have a read-only (write support is flakey) implementation
> of unionfs. But why change _back_ to /usr -> / when that was used for
We need write support, of course, for this to work.
Why change back? Because it's better that way. You can't give bogus
arguments (arguments *you* know are bogus) and say "this is true". If
it's a good argument, then it's a good argument. If it's a bad one,
then you can't suddenly pretend it's good.
> 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?
> You can't run "maintainer scripts" from a translator, since you do not
> have any form of I/O from the user. How do you expect to run debconf
> or similar to setup the package?
You can't. Please answer the question. What problem are you trying
to solve? How does getting rid of maintainer scripts solve the
problem which maintainer scripts are there to solve?
> > /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'll eat my hat when that happens.
Debian will do whatever FHS says, and FHS will change the Hurd-annex
to say whatever we ask for.