| 1 |
Michał Górny schrieb: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:06:11 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Michał Górny schrieb: |
| 6 |
>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:47:38 +0100 |
| 7 |
>>> Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> 2. switching from udev to mdev (avoids required /usr of udev) |
| 10 |
>>>> 3. some wrapper script to mount /usr before udev starts |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> These two should be really discouraged as a cheap, temporary |
| 13 |
>>> solution. We should not support hate-admining. I personally think |
| 14 |
>>> that busybox is ready to go into /usr even earlier than udev. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Please give us a bit more than just your opinion. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> Why do you see mdev as a temporary solution? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Because we will then return to this discussion at some later point |
| 21 |
> and people will start throwing excrements at us again. So let's be done |
| 22 |
> with this at once. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Please tell me, how a replacement for udev, which in the end removes the |
| 25 |
requirement for mounted /usr at boot time, should later require a |
| 26 |
mounted /usr again. |
| 27 |
And please dont tell me, that this will happen because you moved |
| 28 |
everything to /usr. This is something you would like to do and wish to |
| 29 |
see, but i dont see it happen. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
>> And this part was not about the movement to /usr at all, so why do you |
| 33 |
>> suggest another movement here? And while you answer that, please also |
| 34 |
>> tell us, why you want to migrate packages to a different install |
| 35 |
>> location without a need. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Because we need to finally be able to fix mistakes made in the past |
| 38 |
> by other people. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
This has already been commented on by grobian and ulm, so i see no need |
| 41 |
to dublicate their lines. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
>>>> For the idea of complete migration to /usr, i see no reason to go |
| 44 |
>>>> this route in advance. Just keep with our default install |
| 45 |
>>>> locations and follow upstream, if and where needed. |
| 46 |
>>> |
| 47 |
>>> What about upstreams who do not care? In other words, all those |
| 48 |
>>> packages which we hack to install into rootfs? |
| 49 |
>> |
| 50 |
>> They install and work fine, so just keep it this way. I did not see |
| 51 |
>> any argument to move packages around, that work well and have no |
| 52 |
>> issue with their current install location. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> What if, say, upstream introduces pkg-config file where our hacks will |
| 55 |
> cause it to be installed into /lib/pkgconfig? Should we then expand |
| 56 |
> the hack to cover that, and something else, and then another thing... |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Defining a prefix is no "hack", it is an option you can use. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Anyway, we both have probably enough packages with such a "hack" |
| 61 |
installed, but i cannot find a single file in /lib/pkgconfig, not even |
| 62 |
that dir does exist. Is it different on your system? |
| 63 |
If not, then please tell me, why you create some theory about possible |
| 64 |
issues, which dont even exist. Dont you have better arguments for your |
| 65 |
suggested move to /usr? |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
-- |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Thomas Sachau |
| 71 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives