On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 06:32:37PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 11:41:12PM -0800, Noah Sombrero wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:27:21 -0600, you wrote: > > > > >> > > >> Hmm, yes I can move those directories and replace them with links or > > >> just mount them to appropriate dirs under /usr. Did not think of that. > > >> But still, apt has this little flaw it seems to me. > > > > > >apt is flawed because your /usr/partition is too small and you did not > > >think to use symlinks? That's hilarious. > > > > Apt is flawed because allowance is not made for the fact that hard drives > > fill up. > > > > I can use symlinks, I can copy /usr to a new hd and mount the new hd as > > /usr. But these things could be unnecessary if a small amount of lee way > > were built into the system. > > [ snip ] > > I must be completely missing your point. > > [ rant snipped ] > > What _would satisfy you? A system that said "Hi, I noticed your /usr > is pretty full so I'm going to delete some stuff"? Or should it say > "Hi, /usr is full so I'll just install stuff into > /{home,var,opt,mnt,whatever}" even though that's totally against > accepted standards, will make life for users of this machine > difficult, and will be almost impossible to maintain? IOW, your > "small amount of leeway" (it's one word) is no small thing at all. There may actually be a valid idea in this; If we allow dpkg to install files in different places than the package says, and puts symlinks in place, then it just might work. E.g. if the package wants /usr/bin/foobar, then dpkg could be put in /mntpoint/bin/foobar and add a symlink to /usr/bin. Something like: dpkg --substitute /usr:/mntpoint --install my-favourite.deb (some packages may not like having their files becoming symlinks) > You say (in another email) that you are a programmer and you think > this should be an obvious solution. Fine, fire up $EDITOR and code > away, submit patches, start your own distro, whatever. If that's > beyond you, try to understand _why_ things work the way they do. Read > the FHS. Read "Essential UNIX Administration" (Frisch). As a system > administrator I would be appalled by a system that works the way you > seem to want it to work. As a programmer I see nothing but a > minefield for little to no gain in usability. I have to agree here. I would not want to fiddle with location of the files. Although it is probably possible to symlink things into /usr, I don't see the need to. Perhaps it will be useful for very odd systems, e.g. multiple 100Mb disks !? (LVM sounds better). Noah:- if you're really interested, feel free to hack dpkg. I have to admit that I would not want to use such a feature, but somebody else might. As long as it doesn't break dpkg and the default behaviour doesn't change, I guess it would be OK. Just because *I* don't like the idea, doesn't make it wrong. -- Karl E. Jørgensen karl@jorgensen.com www.karl.jorgensen.com /"\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign x - Say NO to HTML in email / \ - Say NO to Word documents in email (and Macros!)
Attachment:
pgpXSOE4xsHDL.pgp
Description: PGP signature