| 1 |
On 01/03/14 02:18, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 2:03 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 09:57:15PM +0000, David Leverton wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> The reason the split happened is pretty straight forward, and every other |
| 6 |
>>>> "justification" for continuing it was come up with after the fact. |
| 7 |
>>> I keep hearing this, but I really don't see how it's relevant. I'm sure |
| 8 |
>>> you'll find lots of things in your life that you use for some purpose |
| 9 |
>>> other than what they were originally invented for¹, and there's no |
| 10 |
>>> reason why /usr should be any different. All that matters is whether or |
| 11 |
>>> not the newer reasons for having separate /usr actually provide a benefit. |
| 12 |
>> And I would argue that the maintenance cost of having separate /usr in a |
| 13 |
>> general sense is much higher than the benefit it provides. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> The problem with it is that it is next to impossible nowadays to define |
| 16 |
>> what should go in / vs what should go in /usr. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> William |
| 19 |
> Now it is difficult as too much time it was ignored. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Nod |
| 22 |
If only Portage had supported checking if files from /usr were used by |
| 23 |
files installed to / |
| 24 |
Hard to create check for every case, but something like libraries and NEEDED |
| 25 |
entries (bug 443590) would have been a start |
| 26 |
But there simply wasn't enough popular demand for sep. /usr, so nobody |
| 27 |
was willing to do the work |
Archives