On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 12:55:02PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > On 08/01/2011 07:10 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > * Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto schrieb am 01.08.11 um 11:19 Uhr: > >> I agree with Eray. Furthermore, please stop trying to reverse "the > >> game". It's those that want to break existing policies and conventions > >> that have to justify why they want to do that, not those that want to > >> keep using what has worked for years. > > > > I wouldn't call the current static -workarounds, and files from / using > > files from /usr, neither a clean solution or working > > > > The separation is unnecessary maintaince burden for something that has > > maintaince free replacement > > Right. The root problem at the core of this whole discussion is that > separating / and /usr is really a dependency satisfaction problem that > requires maintenance. > > It seems absurd to manage this kind of dependency problem by hand when > we can use the package manager to do it. For example, we could have > packages that install into / set something like > PROPERTIES="available-when-init-starts" (of course we'd use a shorter > name), and the package manager would then be able to trigger a QA > warning if one of these packages depends on a package that does not have > PROPERTIES="available-when-init-starts" set.
RESTRICT=limit-to-init is a bit more inline w/ our norms. Easy enough set of checks to add either way. ~brian
