| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 12:55:02PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/01/2011 07:10 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > * Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto schrieb am 01.08.11 um 11:19 Uhr: |
| 4 |
> >> I agree with Eray. Furthermore, please stop trying to reverse "the |
| 5 |
> >> game". It's those that want to break existing policies and conventions |
| 6 |
> >> that have to justify why they want to do that, not those that want to |
| 7 |
> >> keep using what has worked for years. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I wouldn't call the current static -workarounds, and files from / using |
| 10 |
> > files from /usr, neither a clean solution or working |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > The separation is unnecessary maintaince burden for something that has |
| 13 |
> > maintaince free replacement |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Right. The root problem at the core of this whole discussion is that |
| 16 |
> separating / and /usr is really a dependency satisfaction problem that |
| 17 |
> requires maintenance. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> It seems absurd to manage this kind of dependency problem by hand when |
| 20 |
> we can use the package manager to do it. For example, we could have |
| 21 |
> packages that install into / set something like |
| 22 |
> PROPERTIES="available-when-init-starts" (of course we'd use a shorter |
| 23 |
> name), and the package manager would then be able to trigger a QA |
| 24 |
> warning if one of these packages depends on a package that does not have |
| 25 |
> PROPERTIES="available-when-init-starts" set. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
RESTRICT=limit-to-init is a bit more inline w/ our norms. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Easy enough set of checks to add either way. |
| 30 |
~brian |
Archives