| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 02:19:39PM -0500, Olivier Crête wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 13:02 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 01:50:25PM -0500, Olivier Crête wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > I don't see what breakage would be caused by a big-bang update (move |
| 5 |
> > > everything in /sbin,/bin/,usr/sbin to usr/bin and add symlinks. I really |
| 6 |
> > > doubt any system has a /usr so tight that adding the couple things that |
| 7 |
> > > are in / to /usr/bin would break it.. Btw, this also includes /lib* |
| 8 |
> > > to /usr/lib*. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > I think the best way to do this part of it is going to be to just follow |
| 11 |
> > the upstream packages. When they release a new version that installs in |
| 12 |
> > /usr, just allow that to happen. Eventually there will be very little in |
| 13 |
> > /{bin,sbin,lib}, maybe nothing besides a couple of symbolic links like |
| 14 |
> > /bin/sh. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > I am not for what fedora is doing with the |
| 17 |
> > /bin->/usr/bin, /sbin->/usr/sbin and /lib->/usr/lib symlinks. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> At least the upstreams that work for RedHat and Suse (and that's almost |
| 20 |
> all system packages) will come to expect that these symlinks exist. For |
| 21 |
> example, I just heard that kmod will expect kernel modules |
| 22 |
> in /usr/lib/modules even though the kernel installs them |
| 23 |
> in /lib/modules.. So yes, upstream will force these symlinks on us too. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I just looked at the commit in kmod for this. It can be worked around |
| 26 |
with a ./configure switch until the kernel switches their install |
| 27 |
location, so they aren't forcing this one. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
William |
Archives