On Jun 20 17:10, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jun 20 10:19, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:20:51AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >Conflicts like this will happen. If we change libexec, we have to be > > >prepared for this kind of stuff. Is it worth it? > > > > I certainly have gone through this "pain" when the changeover was made > > on Linux. If we want to provide the real Linux look-and-feel I don't > > think we have any choice. :-) > > > > But, seriously, I think that the change makes sense in the long run. If > > we don't do this we'll eventually just have to be tweaking more and more > > configurations to put things in /usr/libexec rather than /usr/lib. > > Yeah, probably. Me and my lawn... > > > On a similar note, what about Fedora (and others) fusion of /usr/bin <> /bin > > and /usr/sbin <> /sbin? Do we want to think about that too? It would > > certainly make sense for Cygwin. We could get rid of /usr/bin entirely. > > No, we can't. Fedora has /usr/bin, /usr/lib and /usr/sbin, while the > /bin, /lib, and /sbin paths are just symlinks to their /usr counterparts. > This is necessary to maintain hardcode paths, and this will not go away > in Fedora for a long time. > > For Cygwin we did this fusion anyway since version 1.1 or so, just as > mount points and in the other direction. We were far ahead of time :) > > Having said that, we could do the same for /sbin vs. /usr/sbin and > create an automatic mount point for it as well.
OTOH, in an existing installation this requires to move the existing files in /usr/sbin to /sbin before installing the new Cygwin maintaining the auto mount point. Hmm. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
