| 1 |
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:10:27 +0300 |
| 2 |
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> * Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto schrieb am 01.08.11 um 11:19 Uhr: |
| 5 |
> > I agree with Eray. Furthermore, please stop trying to reverse "the |
| 6 |
> > game". It's those that want to break existing policies and |
| 7 |
> > conventions that have to justify why they want to do that, not |
| 8 |
> > those that want to keep using what has worked for years. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I wouldn't call the current static -workarounds, and files from / |
| 11 |
> using files from /usr, neither a clean solution or working |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Not to mention there are no 'libexec' nor 'share' directories in |
| 14 |
rootfs which means files get randomly misplaced. And I don't really |
| 15 |
think that introducing new directories in / is a good solution. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
One thing we should consider as well is /opt. It seems like moving data |
| 18 |
from it into /usr should be a good idea too. This is also annoying to |
| 19 |
separate /usr users wanting to have a small rootfs -- as they either |
| 20 |
have to hack /opt out of rootfs or introduce just an another filesystem |
| 21 |
for it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Best regards, |
| 25 |
Michał Górny |
Archives