On Sun, 15 May 2011 14:06:33 +0930 Rusty Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:48:24 +1000, Karl Goetz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:06:08 +0930 > > Rusty Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Note that such symlinking doesn't require FHS changes; when FHS > > > says a directory should contain something, that something may be > > > a symlink to elsewhere. > > > > Hi rusty, > > Are you saying "If /usr is mandated by FHS, it can be a symlink > > to /", or "If /usr is mandated by FHS, it must be a directory and > > can optionally contain nothing but symlinks"? > > Both. Anywhere the FHS says "foo must exist", foo can be a symlink. right, thanks for the clarification. > > General question (for all): Would it be worth us changing the /usr > > section to say it may be a symlink to / under certain circumstances? > > kk > > No, because this applies globally to the FHS. Putting it explicitly > in one place would probably make things more confusing... understood. thanks for commenting, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
