[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: No to StowFS!
From: |
Alfred M. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: No to StowFS! |
Date: |
Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:18:21 +0100 |
I admit I'm not sure of all the context here, but is there some
proposal that /usr will not resolve in GNU? That seems impractical
to me. Virtually everything ever written uses /usr, one way or
another.
There aren't many things that need /usr, most things will figure out
such information during compile time. In either case, keeping or not
keeping `/usr -> .' is really not an issue, there is no harm in
keeping it around for now, and when the time comes, it is easy to
remove.
- Re: No to StowFS!, (continued)
- Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/02
- Re: No to StowFS!, Gianluca Guida, 2006/02/02
- Re: No to StowFS!, Leonardo Pereira, 2006/02/02
- Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/03
- Re: No to StowFS!, Filip Brcic, 2006/02/04
- Re: No to StowFS!, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/06
- Re: No to StowFS!, Karl Berry, 2006/02/06
- Re: No to StowFS!, Karl Berry, 2006/02/06
- Re: No to StowFS!,
Alfred M. Szmidt <=
- Re: No to StowFS!, Karl Berry, 2006/02/07
- Re: No to StowFS!, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/08
- Re: No to StowFS!, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2006/02/08
- Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/07
- Re: No to StowFS!, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/06
- Re: No to StowFS!, Michael Heath, 2006/02/04
- Re: No to StowFS!, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/06
- Re: No to StowFS!, Filip Brcic, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Gianluca Guida, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/05