Stephen Potter writes: > James Carlson wrote: > > The contents file is currently a documented part of the system (see > > contents(4)), and, more importantly, there are applications that have > > come to depend on it. > > It is also documented as "unstable", so by my understanding that makes it > more acceptable for us to break it.
Agreed; but see the "more importantly" part. Even if we _can_ break it, we have to consider carefully whether we _should_ do so. > > Without that, yes, you can break up the file, as long as you figure > > out some reasonable way to handle shared components (such as > > directories). As Dave said, there are likely other things that need > > to be addressed. > > Could we break it on FS hierarchy, something like contents.etc, contents.usr, > contents.var, etc? Or, perhaps as a directory contents/etc, contents/usr, > contents/var? It may need to go to two levels somehow, as on my system > 142000 > of the 147000 lines of contents are for files in usr. Maybe > > contents (top directory) > contents/contents (files in root, including directory entries) > contents/usr/contents (files in usr, including directory entries) > contents/usr/lib/contents (files in /usr/lib) > contents/usr/ucb/contents (files in /usr/ucb) > ...etc... Yes, that could work. -- James Carlson, KISS Network <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
