This is probably a dumb question, but currently where is /usr a symlink to? AFAIK, on my Debian GNU/Linux system, /usr is its own dir, and not a symlink. Also, with my limited knowledge, would a hard link work instead of a soft one (symlink)? Thanks for the info.
God bless Hiran On 7/14/05, Manuel Menal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > [ Moved to the Debian GNU/Hurd mailing list. ] > > [snip] > > > AFAIK this is not the first time for something like this to happen. > > It sure isn't. > > > I strongly suggest to remove the '/usr -> .' symlink from the Debian > > GNU/Hurd system. Having this symlink (and having no /usr anymore, > > eventually) is suited for the GNU system, but not for Debian. > > This has been discussed at lengths. The compromise is to have the > /usr -> . symlink as an *option* with the default being a separate /usr. > Is there really something wrong with that? I see no reason to forbid > those of us that want this symlink to have it. > > > And I doubt that anyone will volunteer to fix all the postinst, > > configure, etc. scripts that are currently "broken". > > There are two issues, really. The one I pointed out (with man-db using > 'pager' and gzip which are in '/usr/bin' and '/bin') makes clear that > every Debian GNU/Hurd package should be built on a machine with a > separate /usr. But that's only for builders, not users. I've never seen > any cases where properly-built packages caused problems with '/usr' -> . > symlink, except what happened with 'nano' a few months ago, when it > shipped both '/bin/nano' and '/usr/bin/nano' (the second being a symlink > to the first), which resulted into a recursive symlink. But this is rare > and easy enough to fix. Did you see many other cases ? > > -- > Manuel Menal > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >