| 1 |
Am Donnerstag, 6. Mai 2021, 22:34:52 CEST schrieb Palmer Dabbelt: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> TBH: I'm not really going to come up with something better beacuse I |
| 4 |
> came up with the current (and likely broken) scheme and I still |
| 5 |
> don't fully understand why. So if you have suggestions as to |
| 6 |
> something that would actually work that would be great, as |
| 7 |
> otherwise I'm just going to come up with something broken again ;) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Heh. No worries. I actually liked the idea, just until the moment when |
| 11 |
I remembered that we had been campaigning for months to replace all |
| 12 |
absolute symlinks in Gentoo with relative ones. And suddenly there is |
| 13 |
only on riscv not enough "../" in the link. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Is the constraint just "no sub-directories for libraries"? IIRC we |
| 16 |
> did that because someone else was already doing it and it seems to |
| 17 |
> be less of a FHS break that adding a bunch of first-level |
| 18 |
> directories. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I need to read up on FHS. Time... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Andreas K. Hüttel |
| 25 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 26 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 27 |
(council, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice) |
Archives