On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:06:11 +0100
Thomas Sachau <email@example.com> wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb:
> > On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:47:38 +0100
> > Thomas Sachau <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> 2. switching from udev to mdev (avoids required /usr of udev)
> >> 3. some wrapper script to mount /usr before udev starts
> > These two should be really discouraged as a cheap, temporary
> > solution. We should not support hate-admining. I personally think
> > that busybox is ready to go into /usr even earlier than udev.
> Please give us a bit more than just your opinion.
> Why do you see mdev as a temporary solution?
Because we will then return to this discussion at some later point
and people will start throwing excrements at us again. So let's be done
with this at once.
> And this part was not about the movement to /usr at all, so why do you
> suggest another movement here? And while you answer that, please also
> tell us, why you want to migrate packages to a different install
> location without a need.
Because we need to finally be able to fix mistakes made in the past
by other people.
> >> For the idea of complete migration to /usr, i see no reason to go
> >> this route in advance. Just keep with our default install
> >> locations and follow upstream, if and where needed.
> > What about upstreams who do not care? In other words, all those
> > packages which we hack to install into rootfs?
> They install and work fine, so just keep it this way. I did not see
> any argument to move packages around, that work well and have no
> issue with their current install location.
What if, say, upstream introduces pkg-config file where our hacks will
cause it to be installed into /lib/pkgconfig? Should we then expand
the hack to cover that, and something else, and then another thing...