Re: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.0 (fwd)
Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
>
> [idea of a script, that moves everything to new places, doing lots of
> symlinks].
>
> not a good idea.
> in the old slackware says, i moved my own system to fsstnd : moving
> files around, sometimes using symlinks, sometimes recompiling things.
>
> i will never try to do something similiar again.
> to many programs depend one this or that path.
>
Yes, this won't work.
The original proposal was to establish symlinks to directories for the
transition period, untill _all_ debian's packages install with the new
path, and _only_then_ permit to move.
The idea was that during the transition period old and new paths should
refere to the same phisical place. That period would be long more than
one release life.
On an upgraded machine, packages install files using the new names, but
the symlink make them phisically appear in the old instead then the new.
When there are no more packages installing in the old position, then the
symlink can be removed, and new names (as in the dpkg lists) used to
build hardlinks or real moves in case of different file systems. Later
the old hierarchy can be safely removed.
On machines installed freshly during the transition period, the real
hierarchy would be the new one, and the old one is a symlink, so old
packages that still install with the old path, will have the files
appear in the new path (as well as the old path: during the transition
period those hierarchies appear apparently duplicated). When there are
no more files regularly installed with the old path, the symlink can be
safely removed and, that's all.
Anyway the proposal was harshly rejected with the assertion that "dpkg
have problems with symlinks to directories", argument that I can't
debate. Maybe now that Klee and Ian have time again for Debian, we could
hear a more informed opinion.
Fabrizio
--
| fpolacco@icenet.fi fpolacco@debian.org fpolacco@pluto.linux.it
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
> Just because Red Hat do it doesn't mean it's a good idea. [Ian J.]
Reply to: