Thu Jun 20 15:15:00 GMT 2013
On Jun 20 17:10, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jun 20 10:19, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:20:51AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >Conflicts like this will happen. If we change libexec, we have to be
> > >prepared for this kind of stuff. Is it worth it?
> > I certainly have gone through this "pain" when the changeover was made
> > on Linux. If we want to provide the real Linux look-and-feel I don't
> > think we have any choice. :-)
> > But, seriously, I think that the change makes sense in the long run. If
> > we don't do this we'll eventually just have to be tweaking more and more
> > configurations to put things in /usr/libexec rather than /usr/lib.
> Yeah, probably. Me and my lawn...
> > On a similar note, what about Fedora (and others) fusion of /usr/bin <> /bin
> > and /usr/sbin <> /sbin? Do we want to think about that too? It would
> > certainly make sense for Cygwin. We could get rid of /usr/bin entirely.
> No, we can't. Fedora has /usr/bin, /usr/lib and /usr/sbin, while the
> /bin, /lib, and /sbin paths are just symlinks to their /usr counterparts.
> This is necessary to maintain hardcode paths, and this will not go away
> in Fedora for a long time.
> For Cygwin we did this fusion anyway since version 1.1 or so, just as
> mount points and in the other direction. We were far ahead of time :)
> Having said that, we could do the same for /sbin vs. /usr/sbin and
> create an automatic mount point for it as well.
OTOH, in an existing installation this requires to move the existing
files in /usr/sbin to /sbin before installing the new Cygwin maintaining
the auto mount point. Hmm.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
More information about the Cygwin-apps