| 1 |
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 22:28:16 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> - approve/disapprove removal of gen_usr_ldscript |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I'm not sure what you meant here, but if that meant 'make it a no-op on |
| 7 |
> systems where it makes sense', then fine by me. Otherwise, please keep |
| 8 |
> in mind that removing it will also affect g/fbsd where this is still |
| 9 |
> needed in order to have a sane / and /usr separation. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I haven't really seen any discussion of this so I'll chime in. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Up until now most of the discussion has been about ALLOWING |
| 14 |
maintainers to stick boot-required files in /usr at some point in the |
| 15 |
future. Changing things like gen_usr_ldscript would actually |
| 16 |
represent an active push towards moving these files into /usr. I |
| 17 |
think that is a big distinction, and it would cause our Linux vs BSD |
| 18 |
approaches to diverge unless we forced BSD to follow along. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I think there is a difference between allowing a few Linux-only |
| 21 |
packages to move to /usr to follow upstream and moving towards a full |
| 22 |
scale /usr migration on Linux for all packages, even if their |
| 23 |
upstreams don't use /usr. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I think the more conservative approach is to take things one step at a |
| 26 |
time - after some period of time allow things to move to /usr, but |
| 27 |
leave it up to maintainer discretion, since they're the ones getting |
| 28 |
bugs from linux, BSD, etc. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Rich |
Archives