On 4 Sep 2001, D. J. Bernstein wrote:

> So the introduction of /var caused problems for you? And /root? And
> /proc? And /emul? Do you also have a problem with new files in /bin, for
> example, or /usr/X11R6? What's so special about the root directory?

obviously he said /var is on it's own partition. /usr would be too. /proc
isn't a normal filesystem. /root should be in / unless you want a nastier
experience when booting single-user for maintenance/recovery or whatever.
You do *understand* how people maintain systems right?

This is why a lot of BSD people feel that decisions in linux distributions
to put everything in /bin & /usr/bin are short-sighted.

And what's special about / is that it's (most likely :) a local
filesystem. And, hello, IT'S THE ROOT FILESYSTEM. Protecting it and its
contents is pretty important. Decisions about what goes there - other than
the bare minimum of OS bits and pieces - are local decisions. I like / to
be small and simple. And read only if possible. If I have problems with
applications that affect filesystems I'd prefer my machine to be bootable
and relatively pristine, thankyou. So if I put /package in / then I have
to be able to regularly write to stuff on it to maintain it. Or link to it
elsewhere. I don't know about anyone else but I think symlinks in / suck.
I'll tolerate certain ones where necessary for good reasons (/emul) but,
most importantly, it's not up to you to dictate where and how I distribute
between systems. I use AFS. I won't accomodate /package in it. I've come
up with a good scheme for me. Guess what? I bet it wouldn't apply well for
you. I'm not trying to force you to use it...

> Apparently you found /emul acceptable because it was (very recently!)
> symlinked into /usr/local. Why isn't the same acceptable for /package?

because /emul is historical for OpenBSD. /package is not. I wouldn't be
surprised if the link from /emul eventually is no longer required and
things reference /usr/local/emul directly... just as your packages would
if you'd bless them to go there.

/emul also only changes if you need to add things. I populate /emul once
after a release. Can you promise that your software is that static (of
course not)

For that matter my mail and DNS servers are quiet and have no apps that
require /emul ->/usr/local/emul support. This is my situation and, unlike
you, I don't choose to make decisions for others that represent my
requirements. I'm not trying to bait you with that.

> > there's the hassle of repartitioning hundreds of machines.
>
> No, there isn't.

yes there is. /package isn't going in /. At least there'd be hundreds of
machines having to have this symlink. that sucks. So everytime it's
referenced it has to be followed. yick. Or a partition or *FS mount.

> Huh? We're talking about _new_ packages. The filenames are going to be
> new in any case. Why does the choice between /usr and /package affect
> your training costs?

I believe we're talking about _your_ packages. Anyone else buying into
/package?

> http://cr.yp.to/compatibility.html

I understand your point. I think a lot of the concepts you're espousing
are nifty. I'm just sure that I have enough applied experience to make the
decision of _where_ for myself. For software with a goal of being portable
(your software :) dictating things like this really impacts that. This is
all really regrettable because there'd be OpenBSD users who either use
your software or were considering it who won't because it's not in ports
or packages because of your restrictions. (yes... they can build it from
src)

I haven't seen anyone supporting your arguments. This being the ports
list I can imagine why. I'm just an end-consumer of the ports. But I
imagine the maintainers *must* have the flexibility to put packages within
OpenBSD's standards. Otherwise chaos & mayhem would ensue.:)

regards,

neal
___________
d neal wise - nwisespy.net
SPY internetworking - will network for food
http://www.spy.net

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]