Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 à 18:32 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
You said it: there is a cache. After the first access, the directory
will be in the cache. Making all of this a purely imaginary problem.
The whole directory is in the cache? I
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 11:47:31AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[snip]
But the problem remains that you have to look at each dire entry in
unhashed ext2/3, fat or minix.
Ehrm, I don't think having /usr/lib on a fat FS is an option anyway,
considering its lacking file ownership/permission
[David Weinehall]
Ehrm, I don't think having /usr/lib on a fat FS is an option anyway,
considering its lacking file ownership/permission support and its
filename munging...
I should think the lack of symlink support is the real problem.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 à 18:32 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
You said it: there is a cache. After the first access, the directory
will be in the cache. Making all of this a purely imaginary problem.
The whole directory is in the cache? I don't think so. Remember,
that in between
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which doesn't? Minix maybe. Even ext2/3 has hashes for dir if you
format it that way.
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Is this the Debian default for installation?
Yes, it is. I just checked and every install I've done turned this on without
my
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le mercredi 11 mai 2005 13:35 -0300, Humberto Massa a crit :
Imagine that, to load Konqui, you have to go 200 times to the disk (ok,
cache, but...), each of them reading the 1 entries I have in
/usr/lib, some of them twice or three times, to
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What does the default Debian install do?
Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
Which is a sane choice as directory indexing on ext3 still seems to
be not fully mature.
And as mentioned in another
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:50, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
On fedora-devel
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:50, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would it be desirable to have arch-os
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
I wanted my partition ext3, xfs, or reiserfs IIRC; I chose reiserfs,
and I am pretty
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What does the default Debian install do?
Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
Which is a sane choice as directory indexing on ext3 still seems to
be
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would you agree that that bug should be fixed (in Etch), irrespective
of whether the FHS is also changed to split /usr/lib?
I'm not expert enough on the other factors that might be relevant to
say.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What does the default Debian install do?
Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
Which is a sane choice as directory
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What does the default Debian install do?
Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
BUt according to Christoph Hellwig, the ext3 which is the default is
used without directory indexing, which returns you to O(n).
You have yet to present any numbers which show there is a problem here.
Can we please discuss real world
Will Newton wrote:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
BUt according to Christoph Hellwig, the ext3 which is the default is
used without directory indexing, which returns you to O(n).
You have yet to present any numbers which show there is a problem here.
Can we
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:35, Humberto Massa wrote:
This is not an imaginary problem, after all, in principle.
Let's see, as I wrote before, my installation has *thousands* of files
in /usr/lib and, in some filesystems, this can add up to a very large
time (and ab-use of dentry cache
[Humberto Massa]
As I said before, as far as I recall, the Debian installer suggested
me only filesystems that have O(1) [O(log n) worst case] directory
lookup. I chose reiserfs, but the installer IIRC suggested ext3 and
xfs as alternatives.
As Christoph (I think) said, Debian creates ext3
Le mercredi 11 mai 2005 à 13:35 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit :
Imagine that, to load Konqui, you have to go 200 times to the disk (ok,
cache, but...), each of them reading the 1 entries I have in
/usr/lib, some of them twice or three times, to follow the symlinks.
This is a real
Peter Samuelson wrote:
(...)
HOWEVER
This is a very silly thing to argue about without benchmarks. Those
who care about this - yes, Thomas, I mean you - should get numbers.
Here's how:
(steps 1-6)
You are 100% right and I stand corrected.
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:42:31AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
Why is that?
Missing bootloader support.
- a larger FS has more chance of failing so you risk having a fully
broken system more often
Once upon a time GOMBAS Gabor said...
$ df -h
FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda5 99M 75M 19M 80% /
[...]
$ du -sh /etc/gconf
26M /etc/gconf
That's 1/3 of my root fs. It's damn too much.
I discovered this a while ago and learned that
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
Why is that?
Missing bootloader support.
the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:38:02AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Martin Waitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
It reduces search times in libraries, which is important.
We do not have that bug, so it's not important to
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
semantic significance at all), why separate
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs /
distinction,
then there is no before /usr is mounted.
But then you have a minimum 1-5GB /. That sucks.
Why, exactly? I know people think
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 10:21 +0200, GOMBAS Gabor a écrit :
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:42:31AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
Why is that?
Missing bootloader support.
Which bootloader doesn't
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 02:18, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and
having the same directory names used across distributions provides real
benefits (copying config files
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
I believe that there are LILO patches for /boot on LVM. There's no reason why
GRUB and other boot loaders couldn't be updated in
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
(I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the following still applies to
/boot.)
Well, grub _does_ access the filesystem
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
default Debian install?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do you think are the original reasons / needed to be small?
I know what they are. PDP-11 boot loaders couldn't access long block
addresses. This was copied into 32V on the Vax, where it entered
4BSD.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 00:55, GOMBAS Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
(I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the
GOMBAS Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
(I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the following still applies to
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
Why is that?
Lvm has its backup data in /etc by default. If you ever need it you
are screwed with / on lvm. Also snapshots
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lvm has its backup data in /etc by default. If you ever need it you
are screwed with / on lvm. Also snapshots and pvmove don't work
(deadlock).
raid0/5 don't have support in the bootloaders.
reiserfs/xfs miss support in bootloaders or their
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 10:21 +0200, GOMBAS Gabor a écrit :
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:42:31AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
Why is that?
Missing
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 02:18, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and
having the same directory names used across distributions
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
I believe that there are LILO patches for /boot on LVM. There's no reason
why
GRUB
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 17:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
Almost all the schemas were already moved out to /usr/share. We plan to
move the defaults directory structure to /var/lib/gconf after the
release - at least, the defaults brought by package; we have to keep a
defaults
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:39, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
I
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
default Debian install?
These
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
On fedora-devel Bill Nottingham suggested having /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64 for
programs that care about such things and /usr/libexec for programs
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
You've missed the point. Split / and /boot, that makes sense if it's
necessary. Splitting / and /usr does not make sense.
Sure it does. Especially if you want / to be in a Flash disk and /usr to
be somewhere else in the network.
HTH
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open,
reiserfs, ext2/3 (with dir_index), and probably others.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
ext2 doesn't.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
ext2 doesn't.
With dir_index, yes it does.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:21:50PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
ext2 doesn't.
With dir_index, yes it does.
If you want to forward port a three year old patch full of bugs and
incompatible to the dir_index used in ext3 - all luck to you.
All debian kernel-image packages don't have it for
GOMBAS Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
(I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the following still applies to
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 17:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
Almost all the schemas were already moved out to /usr/share. We plan to
move the defaults directory structure to /var/lib/gconf after the
release - at least, the defaults brought
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
ext2 doesn't.
Convert it to utilize directory hashing. The
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:39, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/ on lvm is a major pain in case of error and if you already need a
seperate / partition adding another for /boot is a bit stupid.
/ on LVM allows for snapshot backups
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
On fedora-devel Bill Nottingham suggested having /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64 for
programs that care about
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 21:37 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 17:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
Almost all the schemas were already moved out to /usr/share. We plan to
move the defaults directory structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Waitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
hoi :)
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:45:32PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?
well, it would be against the FHS, I think.
The BSDs use libexec but I don't really
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 08:12:38AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
default Debian install?
/etc/ld.so.cache
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
No lvm backup data available in case of superblock corruption. Bad
idea. No booting with init=/bin/sh to patch things back together as /
can't be mounted. Bad idea again.
You can store the backup wherever you like, and an emergency boot via usb
stick,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
For sharing the /usr tree among multiple machines with different
architectures (I guess).
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas You've missed the point. Split / and /boot, that makes
Thomas sense if it's necessary. Splitting / and /usr does not
Thomas make sense.
Bad example.
A better example might be if you want to mount /usr via NFS or some
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
I wanted my partition ext3, xfs, or reiserfs IIRC; I chose reiserfs,
and I am pretty sure finding a file in a
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
ext2 doesn't.
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
default Debian install?
/etc/ld.so.cache
Um, no. ld.so.cache gives you the
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
No lvm backup data available in case of superblock corruption. Bad
idea. No booting with init=/bin/sh to patch things back together as /
can't be mounted. Bad idea again.
You can store the backup wherever you
Thomas Bushnell BSG dijo [Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:08:57PM -0700]:
If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc?
I don't see a semantic
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
How many directory entries do you think fit in a block?
If I see this right I habe 80blocks for 756 entries:
# ls -a | wc -l
756
# ls -lsd
80 drwxr-xr-x 122 root root 57344 May 10 06:34 ./
Most likely in dache. Still a lot to traverse.
Ext2 direntry
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
I wanted my partition ext3, xfs, or reiserfs IIRC; I chose
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
with the possible
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Ext2 direntry is 8bytes plus filename (or onlined symlinks, which you have
a lot on /usr/lib). In my case 54bytes per entry.
Me bad - the symlinks are inlined in the inodes of course.
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only reason we don't have it is because of petty bickering and
politics between the FHS folks (several years ago).
That seems a good description of the FHS in general...
-Miles
--
In New York, most people don't have cars, so if you want to kill a
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
I wanted my
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: Last time I installed Debian
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:47, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/ on LVM allows for snapshot backups which are the most convenient method
of backup.
Except that the kernel freezes the device because the DM lock and
device node updating deadlock.
Might work with udev or
hoi :)
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:45:32PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?
well, it would be against the FHS, I think.
The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
--
Martin Waitz
signature.asc
Description: Digital
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things,
I disagree. Why is it
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and having
the same
Martin Waitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?
well, it would be against the FHS, I think.
The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
GNU project stuff also uses libexec (by default; I don't know if that
location gets
[Martin Waitz]
The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it
exists.
Well, the reason */libexec exists is to avoid overloading the meaning
of */lib to include things other than libraries. Just as /sbin was
invented (way back in the day) to stop overloading /etc with things
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?
Debian strives to follow the FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs), and
this standard does not include /usr/libexec.
See also http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=146023,
which mentions the use of
Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know if there's an argument for it other than clarity and
warm fuzzies.
Not that there is anything wrong with warm fuzzies. I prefer that to
a file hierarchy layout that gives me the chills.
[I personally think that if a good idea is against the
Martin Waitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
It reduces search times in libraries, which is important.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things,
I disagree. Why is it
On Monday 09 May 2005 17:17, Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In principle, there could be files which can be used as both a shared
library and an internal binary. Where would you put such files?
Anything that's a shared object has to be in a directory that ldconfig knows
about.
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and having
the same
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:39:10AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better
hoi :)
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:38:02AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
It reduces search times in libraries, which is important.
well, /usr/lib is not _that_ crowded.
Any sane filesystem should handle that many
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make any
difference to a modern GNU linker on a modern filesystem, unless
you have thousands or millions of them.
Why? Is there magic now?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make any
difference to a modern GNU linker on a modern filesystem, unless
you have thousands or millions of them.
Why?
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make any
difference to a modern GNU linker on a modern filesystem, unless
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:33:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You asked why the GNU linker, which does not need to be 'ls' and does
not need to look at the list of files in any directory, scaled well
with the size of the directory. That's the question I answered.
How does ld determine that -latoheun will
ma, 2005-05-09 kello 14:39 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG kirjoitti:
Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You asked why the GNU linker, which does not need to be 'ls' and does
not need to look at the list of files in any directory, scaled well
with the size of the directory. That's
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I may be completely wrong here, but as far as I understand, ld turns
-lfoo into /usr/lib/libfoo.a and then uses that if it can find it. It
might look into some other directories as well, and it might fill in foo
into some other patterns than lib%s.a,
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc?
I don't see a semantic difference between /bin and
Thomas, please read
http://www.nl.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-resources.en.html#s-mailing-lists-rules
about not sending Cc's unless people explicitly ask to be copied.
(Mail-Followup-To is non-standard and badly supported, and also
unnecessary. Any decent mail user agent can deal with
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc?
I don't see a
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I may be completely wrong here, but as far as I understand, ld turns
-lfoo into /usr/lib/libfoo.a and then uses that if it can find it. It
might look into some other directories as well, and it might fill
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
