On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:33 PM Akira Urushibata via lfs-dev
<lfs-dev@lists.linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
>
> Is there any problem with making a new directory at the filesystem
> base level?
>
> In theory there could be a distribution which already has a /tool
> directory.  But I have never heard of that.
>
> What alternatives are there to /tool ?  If /tool is so abhored, why
> not try /usr/local instead ?  What happens when you do that?
> The /usr/local directory must be empty for this to work and you
> shouldn't do anything other than build LFS on this system.  But if
> you dislike /tool , it should be worth a try.
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page

No not at all, I'm actually a fan of the `/tools` symlink on the host
file system (as it has become sort of a convention, and it's known by
many users), but I was just seeing if providing it can be optional.

I understand that `/$dir` and `/home/lfs/$dir` have to exist to get
the chroot linker's paths correctly sorted out, but after looking at
some other options, I'm lead into thinking that `/tools` might be the
best place for this symlink to go to. Some alternatives are:

1- No host symlink, will have to be `/home/lfs/home/lfs/tools` symlink
to `/home/lfs/tools` in order to work inside and outside of chroot.
Pros: No host symlink
Cons: Inconvenient path `/home/lfs/home/lfs/tools

2- `/opt/lfs/tools` host symlink to `/home/lfs/opt/lfs/tools` (will
also have to provide /home/lfs/tools -> `/home/lfs/opt/lfs/toolchain`
or vice versa because it's what the user expects).
Pros: Host symlink conforms to FHS v3.0
Cons: Still a host symlink + inconvenient name
`/home/lfs/opt/lfs/tools` (might also be overridden when an opt dir is
actually needed inside chroot?) + an additional symlink
/home/lfs/tools for where the user expects to find the toolchain.
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to