Thu Jun 20 15:17:00 GMT 2013
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:10:57PM +0200, 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...
I see you got what I meant even though I got the sense wrong.
>> 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.
I guess I should have checked before sending the email but my point was
if we should be eschewing the use of whichever Fedora has gotten rid of.
You're right that /bin is a symlink. So should cygport and others now
be forcing everything into /usr/whatever?
>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.
Although I think they were my idea, I have never really liked the
automatic mount points. Couldn't we just use a symlink?
More information about the Cygwin-apps