Re: /usr -> .
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:18:51PM +0200, Manuel Menal wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> >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.
That may be true for crosshurd installations, but it is certainly not for
installations using the K* series. At least, I did not yet find an
obvious way to disable the symlink.
> Is there really something wrong with that? I see no reason to forbid
> those of us that want this symlink to have it.
The Debian system is not really prepared to handle that case. Having the
'/usr -> .' symlink might not be that intrusive; having a '/X11R6 -> .'
symlink is, as I pointed out in my previous mail.
I don't see any logic in unifying '/' and '/usr/', but not '/X11R6/' at
the same time.
> every Debian GNU/Hurd package should be built on a machine with a
> separate /usr.
Yes.
> 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 ?
No, but I didn't have a deeper look.
Regards,
Thomas
Reply to: