Re: /usr -> .
This is probably a dumb question, but currently where is /usr a
symlink to? AFAIK, on my Debian GNU/Linux system, /usr is its own dir,
and not a symlink. Also, with my limited knowledge, would a hard link
work instead of a soft one (symlink)? Thanks for the info.
On 7/14/05, Manuel Menal <email@example.com> wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > [ Moved to the Debian GNU/Hurd mailing list. ]
> > AFAIK this is not the first time for something like this to happen.
> It sure isn't.
> > I strongly suggest to remove the '/usr -> .' symlink from the Debian
> > GNU/Hurd system. Having this symlink (and having no /usr anymore,
> > eventually) is suited for the GNU system, but not for Debian.
> This has been discussed at lengths. The compromise is to have the
> /usr -> . symlink as an *option* with the default being a separate /usr.
> Is there really something wrong with that? I see no reason to forbid
> those of us that want this symlink to have it.
> > And I doubt that anyone will volunteer to fix all the postinst,
> > configure, etc. scripts that are currently "broken".
> There are two issues, really. The one I pointed out (with man-db using
> 'pager' and gzip which are in '/usr/bin' and '/bin') makes clear that
> every Debian GNU/Hurd package should be built on a machine with a
> separate /usr. But that's only for builders, not users. I've never seen
> any cases where properly-built packages caused problems with '/usr' -> .
> symlink, except what happened with 'nano' a few months ago, when it
> shipped both '/bin/nano' and '/usr/bin/nano' (the second being a symlink
> to the first), which resulted into a recursive symlink. But this is rare
> and easy enough to fix. Did you see many other cases ?
> Manuel Menal
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org