Re: heads up
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> My sentence was unclear, what I meant was why change from /usr -> /
> (which has been long in use) and then back again to /usr -> / when the
> plan has always been to have that symlink or atleast have a translator
> sitting there. Removing the symlink for the sake of removing it is
> sily, and that is what happened.
Keep track of the conversation. You were supposed to be saying that
the Hurd cannot get Debian to agree to /usr->/ for the Hurd, and
you're wrong. Why switch to getting rid of the symlink? Because *we
didn't have shadowfs*. How many times must I explain the same point?
> You can't use normal filesystem calls if you have interactive scripts
> that are running. So you can't do "cp foo.deb
> /debian-package-magic-directory" or similar to install the package, if
> you can't, having a "Debian package translator" is totally useles.
But this is a deficiency in the Hurd. We should find a way to
communicate the user content to servers and it's a long-standing lack
that we cannot.
But of course, there is a way to do this that's pretty simple: set the
install level to automatic
> Debian will do whatever FHS says, and FHS will change the
> Hurd-annex to say whatever we ask for.
> First I suggest that you actually get a Hurd annex into the FHS, and
> that effort has failed several times already. If you look in the
> archives for debian-hurd I'm sure you will find a couple of drafts
> that were sent to the FHS people.
Um, we did actually have a Hurd annex. All we would need to do is
keep up with FHS and add it back; it was removed only because we
weren't bothering to respond to their mail.