"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My sentence was unclear, what I meant was why change from /usr -> / > (which has been long in use) and then back again to /usr -> / when the > plan has always been to have that symlink or atleast have a translator > sitting there. Removing the symlink for the sake of removing it is > sily, and that is what happened.
Keep track of the conversation. You were supposed to be saying that the Hurd cannot get Debian to agree to /usr->/ for the Hurd, and you're wrong. Why switch to getting rid of the symlink? Because *we didn't have shadowfs*. How many times must I explain the same point? > You can't use normal filesystem calls if you have interactive scripts > that are running. So you can't do "cp foo.deb > /debian-package-magic-directory" or similar to install the package, if > you can't, having a "Debian package translator" is totally useles. But this is a deficiency in the Hurd. We should find a way to communicate the user content to servers and it's a long-standing lack that we cannot. But of course, there is a way to do this that's pretty simple: set the install level to automatic > Debian will do whatever FHS says, and FHS will change the > Hurd-annex to say whatever we ask for. > > First I suggest that you actually get a Hurd annex into the FHS, and > that effort has failed several times already. If you look in the > archives for debian-hurd I'm sure you will find a couple of drafts > that were sent to the FHS people. Um, we did actually have a Hurd annex. All we would need to do is keep up with FHS and add it back; it was removed only because we weren't bothering to respond to their mail. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
