[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: No to StowFS!

From: Michael Heath
Subject: Re: No to StowFS!
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:58:58 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)

The problem I can see with this is compatability with hardcoded paths.
There is, for example, a lot of scripts out there that have their magic
set to /usr/bin/perl, or /bin/bash; You'd require customization of an a
lot of things if perl or bash were simply on the PATH and not where most
things expect it to be.

With the current plan, you get the best of both worlds: packages neatly
seperated, yet merged into / so hardcoded things can find them.

Leonardo Pereira wrote:

> I was thinking about why we need to merge all packages on the root
> filesystem is this is not a requirement of POSIX. Posix uses PATH to
> determine where the executable files are, lib directories are setted
> on /etc/ld.so.conf, others directiories of packages are not important
> to the system at all, only to the package, so, it can be on the
> "package directory" inside stow. The unique directory that I think
> that will need to be merged is /include. So, instead a translator that
> merges all the filesystem, what we realy need is a translator to
> change PATH and emulates ld.so.conf, so, you will have a very
> organized directory structure without break POSIX compatibility.
>Bug-hurd mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]