| 1 |
On 08/01/2011 07:10 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 2 |
> * Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto schrieb am 01.08.11 um 11:19 Uhr: |
| 3 |
>> I agree with Eray. Furthermore, please stop trying to reverse "the |
| 4 |
>> game". It's those that want to break existing policies and conventions |
| 5 |
>> that have to justify why they want to do that, not those that want to |
| 6 |
>> keep using what has worked for years. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I wouldn't call the current static -workarounds, and files from / using |
| 9 |
> files from /usr, neither a clean solution or working |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The separation is unnecessary maintaince burden for something that has |
| 12 |
> maintaince free replacement |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Right. The root problem at the core of this whole discussion is that |
| 15 |
separating / and /usr is really a dependency satisfaction problem that |
| 16 |
requires maintenance. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It seems absurd to manage this kind of dependency problem by hand when |
| 19 |
we can use the package manager to do it. For example, we could have |
| 20 |
packages that install into / set something like |
| 21 |
PROPERTIES="available-when-init-starts" (of course we'd use a shorter |
| 22 |
name), and the package manager would then be able to trigger a QA |
| 23 |
warning if one of these packages depends on a package that does not have |
| 24 |
PROPERTIES="available-when-init-starts" set. |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Thanks, |
| 27 |
Zac |
Archives