| 1 |
W dniu śro, 11.07.2018 o godzinie 18∶11 -0400, użytkownik Richard Yao |
| 2 |
napisał: |
| 3 |
> > On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:34 PM Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > On my system, /usr/portage is a separate mountpoint. There is no need to have on,h top level directories be separate mountpoints. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > It makes sense to follow FHS. Sure, I can work around poor designs by |
| 10 |
> > sticking mount points all over the place, or manually setting my |
| 11 |
> > config to put stuff in sane locations. It makes more sense to put all |
| 12 |
> > the volatile stuff in /var, than to mix it up all over the place and |
| 13 |
> > get users to set up separate mountpoints to make up for it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Is it a violation of the FHS? /usr is for readonly data and the portage tree is generally readonly, except when being updated. The same is true of everything else in /usr. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I am confused as to how we only now realized it was a FHS violation when it has been there for ~15 years. I was under the impression that /usr was the correct place for it. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
And we're back to the usual Gentoo argument of 'it was like this for |
| 21 |
N years'. So FYI, something 'being there for ~15 years' doesn't make it |
| 22 |
right. It only means that: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
a. Gentoo devs were wrong 15 years ago. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
b. Gentoo devs are still wrong today. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
c. Gentoo devs can't manage to make such a simple change because they're |
| 29 |
too concerned about hurting somebody's feelings about a path. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
Michał Górny |
Archives