On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:10:57PM +0200, 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...
I see you got what I meant even though I got the sense wrong. >> 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. I guess I should have checked before sending the email but my point was if we should be eschewing the use of whichever Fedora has gotten rid of. You're right that /bin is a symlink. So should cygport and others now be forcing everything into /usr/whatever? >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. Although I think they were my idea, I have never really liked the automatic mount points. Couldn't we just use a symlink? cgf
