| 1 |
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:13 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm not trying to make packages install in /usr with this change. |
| 3 |
>... |
| 4 |
> All I'm proposing is that on |
| 5 |
> linux we should remove that divergance and put libraries where upstream |
| 6 |
> installs them. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Ok, you're not proposing that we move stuff to /usr. You're proposing |
| 9 |
that we stop moving stuff from /usr to / so that they end up in /usr |
| 10 |
just the same. Whatever. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Since we can tell we are on linux by looking at the chost/ctarget |
| 14 |
> variables, and there is not an intention to change anything for *bsd or |
| 15 |
> any other O/S, I am not sure I follow the need for a profile variable. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I think the profile variable is a very good suggestion. This allows |
| 18 |
us to tune the behavior without hard-coding it, and it allows some |
| 19 |
kind of testing/migration path. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I think that any changes need to be discussed a bit more broadly. I'm |
| 22 |
actually supportive of the /usr move in general, but for the number of |
| 23 |
complaints it has gotten I'm a bit surprised to not have seen more on |
| 24 |
this thread. Maybe nobody reads -project. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Whether it is by the general dev community or the council I think |
| 27 |
making any changes to something like gen_usr_ldscript needs good |
| 28 |
awareness, testing, and feedback. As has already been pointed out, we |
| 29 |
need to really be careful about the migration path since you're |
| 30 |
talking about a potential revdep-rebuild for all kinds of packages. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Rich |
Archives