On Jun 20 11:17, Christopher Faylor wrote: > 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?
By default prefix is /usr anyway when building packages with cygport. I don't see a reason to disable packages from specifing /bin as installation path. After all, it's dumped into the same place anyway. > >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? I'm not really loving them either, but the original reason to have /usr/bin and /usr/lib mount points rather than symlinks is performance. That was already the case in pre-1.7 Cygwin when we had the automatic generation of the /usr/bin and /usr/lib mount points in the registry. Handling mount points is noticably faster than handling symlinks. Symlinks require to read file content and since /usr/bin is first in $PATH by default, you get lots and lots of open/read/close calls on the /usr/bin symlink. Even if the file is cached, it's probably still slower than just fetching the mount point from the internal mount table. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
