On 2011-01-04 16:33 +0100, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 09:38:19AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> | An alternative strategy to consider for the future: drop /usr entirely >> | and place all libraries in /lib [as done on GNU/Hurd]. On current >> | systems using initramfs the need for a separate / and /usr is gone. >> | IMHO, there are nowadays few (if any) compelling reasons for having a >> | separate /usr, and hence for having /usr at all other than as a >> | compatibility symlink to /. Have we actually got any reasons for >> | keeping it? >> >> I'd love to see this happening and would like the ability to have /usr >> as a symlink to / as a release goal for squeeze. > > In what way is it not already possible to symlink /usr to /?
There are packages which ship a binary /bin/foo and a symlink /usr/bin/foo to it. Those will likely be broken, since you may end up with only a broken recursive symlink. > I think the issue is that not all users *want* /usr symlinked to /, and > there's no benefit unless everyone switches to the new model. Which is > rather awkward to enforce on upgrades; I don't know about you, but I have > some continuously-upgraded older systems where my /usr isn't going to fit on > my / filesystem. It is not possible to do the switch on upgrades anyway, at least not while every package ships files under /usr. You can only do that when there are no packages installed that have files under /usr. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87oc7wfz73....@turtle.gmx.de
