On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 12:24:02AM +0000, David Leverton wrote: > William Hubbs wrote: > > And I would argue that the maintenance cost of having separate /usr in a > > general sense is much higher than the benefit it provides. > > That's a legitimate point (not that I necessarily agree or disagree as > I'm not the one who's tried to make it work) - perhaps I should have > acknowledged that it's still a trade-off. I'm just trying to get rid of > the meme that whatever benefits do exist somehow don't count because > they weren't planned in the original Unix design.
Actually we are digressing heavily (I'm guilty too), the original point of this thread was about the fhs and how tightly we are supposed to follow it. Patrick thinks that all configuration files belong in /etc, and what has happened is, some packages are placing default configuration files in /lib or /usr/lib and allowing them to be overridden by files with the exact same names and paths in /etc. His argument is that only libraries belong in /lib or /usr/lib. I disagree with this based on understanding how the config system in these packages works. Also, I don't think a distro should do this type of patching if the patches are not accepted upstream. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
