FS layout issues for v1.1 (eg., /bin and /usr/bin)

Glenn Spell glenn@gs.fay.nc.us
Wed Mar 1 13:16:00 GMT 2000

On 1 Mar 2000 around 11:12AM (-0600) Mumit Khan wrote:

> Andrew Dalgleish <andrewd@axonet.com.au> writes:
> > I don't.  I have a minimal "/bin" similar to the FHS.  It makes
> > it very easy to set up a new system because this is the only
> > directory I *have* to copy - everything else is optional.

Right. And it's simple to move or copy (I copy) those executables
from /usr/bin to /bin.

> My proposal is really to make life easier for the "normal" user,
> and not geared for the advanced users like you. You can of course
> always split things up and change the mount manually.

I suggest that the process of describing a "normal user" of Cygwin
would require much to much of everyone's time on both Cygwin lists.
Let's instead shoot for "normal expectations". Since Cygwin provides
Unix emulation, the normal expectation for both software packages and
anyone familiar with Unix would be for a separate /bin and /usr/bin.

> I of course have no problem with a separate minimal /bin and then
> everything else in /usr/bin, and that implies that we now have to
> make sure there is /bin:/usr/bin in user's PATH.

Of course. That too is normally expected.

> And, we need to then modify the way we bootstrap the whole tree[1].

(I'm thinking) not necessarily.

> The trouble is with /lib, which really does need to have enough of
> the libraries that will by default go only to /usr/lib for the next
> release.

I don't see any reason to have a /lib... just a /bin.

> [1] The Cygwin tree is designed to use the prefix/exec-prefix all
> the way, and to have separate /bin, /usr/bin, /lib, /usr/lib,
> we need to make certain packages use `prefix=/' (bash, parts of
> winsup) and others `prefix=/usr' (just about everything else), and
> it's simply a maintainence headache for what I see minimal benefit.

Seems to me that the bootstrapping and build process could remain
the same except for one final step of moving or copying a few agreed
upon executables from /usr/bin to /bin. I'm thinking that if we copy
instead of move then then the mount/symlinks issues will be simpler.

I know that I'm probably not seeing the whole picture and would
appreciate anyone pointing out what I failed to understand.


  ________________________________________      _       _____
 )                                        )_ _ (__\____o /_/_ |
 )    Glenn Spell <glenn@gs.fay.nc.us>    )     >-----._/_/__]>
 )________________________________________)               `0  |

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list