"M.C. Vernon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I disagree here (nb - I am not a compsci). I think to begin with we should > have the /usr dichotamy, with the intention to change it later, when hurd > no longer has to worry so much about being linux compatible.
I think the problem with this could best be explained by reference to history: /usr goes back at least to V6 Unix, and it was the place to put user home directories. At some point some large binaries started to be popular, and /usr/bin showed up as a temporary hack, with the expectation that the root filesystem would get expanded. You can see how well the "change it later" strategy worked there. I think we should patch the small number of packages that have a real problem, and move on. We can create Hurd-specific patches for them, and submit them for consideration in general. I'm happy if the general packages just did [ ! -l /usr ] or whatever. I don't have any interest in trying to tell the ae package that they should not create /usr/bin/vi, but I do think we could say "please don't create /usr/bin/vi on Debian GNU/Hurd" and make it with a suitably generic test. Thomas
