| 1 |
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 12:24:02AM +0000, David Leverton wrote: |
| 2 |
> William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > And I would argue that the maintenance cost of having separate /usr in a |
| 4 |
> > general sense is much higher than the benefit it provides. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> That's a legitimate point (not that I necessarily agree or disagree as |
| 7 |
> I'm not the one who's tried to make it work) - perhaps I should have |
| 8 |
> acknowledged that it's still a trade-off. I'm just trying to get rid of |
| 9 |
> the meme that whatever benefits do exist somehow don't count because |
| 10 |
> they weren't planned in the original Unix design. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Actually we are digressing heavily (I'm guilty too), the original point |
| 13 |
of this thread was about the fhs and how tightly we are supposed to |
| 14 |
follow it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Patrick thinks that all configuration files belong in /etc, and what has |
| 17 |
happened is, some packages are placing default configuration |
| 18 |
files in /lib or /usr/lib and allowing them to be overridden by files |
| 19 |
with the exact same names and paths in /etc. His argument is that only |
| 20 |
libraries belong in /lib or /usr/lib. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I disagree with this based on understanding how the config system in |
| 23 |
these packages works. Also, I don't think a distro should do this type of |
| 24 |
patching if the patches are not accepted upstream. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
William |
Archives