Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:41:06PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>> Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>>> I know that Debian supports this, but I also know that maintaning
>>> forever large changes to packages for no real gain sucks.
>>> A partial list of invalid reasons is: [...]
>> How about: "my /usr is shared by many machines over NFS"?
>
> That might have been a "traditional" reason for a shared /usr.
> However, the package manager can't cope with this setup since
> you have some components of a package installed locally and
> some remotely for all systems using the "shared" part. It's
> an impossible situation to actually cater for in real life.
> Has anyone ever actually *done* this?
So why we created /usr/share (and moved documentation) ?
I see a lot of parallel installed system, so in this case
I see no problem on sharing /usr.
[BTW one of the most important conference is not LISA, about
such configurations?]
But also I don't think it is a problem sharing usr
on multiple system with multiple configurations.
On non public working stations, one doesn't run randomly
programs. If I installed mysql-server on a system,
it will work on such system, but if I install on
an other system, it work also on the other system,
occupying only one instance.
I don't see problem from package management
(also because we have a nullpotent dpkg), so
we can upgrade from multiple system without problems.
> Looking at GNU/Hurd, /usr is a symlink to /. If we were to make
> /usr non-separable, maybe this would be the way to go.
or plan9, which bind mount all /*/bin into the main /bin.
I can live with such solution, but please allow us to use /usr
in a different (maybe shared) partition.
ciao
cate
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
