More: [1.7] packaging problem? Both /usr/bin/ and /usr/lib/ are non-empty

Christopher Faylor
Mon May 11 13:41:00 GMT 2009

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:32:01AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On May 10 12:31, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 12:46:46PM +0000, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>> > All else seems silent on the proposal.  You might want to give it a go.
>> If it isn't too much trouble, could the proposal be summarized?
>> If it is just that the / entry in fstab be ignored in favor of being
>> equivalent to one level above where the cygwin DLL was found, I think
>> that's a good idea.  That is actually sort of similar to the way the
>> linux boot process works.  The root is controlled by the kernel and the
>> entry in /etc/fstab doesn't really necessarily mean much.
>The idea is to convert the /usr/bin and /usr/lib mount points also to
>non-changable mount points since they are supposed to point always to
>/bin and /lib.
>Right now we have this somewhat fragile construct that base-cygwin must
>create the /etc/fstab file first, otherwise the mount points are not in
>place when later postinstall scripts access files in /usr/bin or
>It seems a more robust solution to create all three mount points in Cygwin
>itself and make them readonly.
>Good? Bad? Ugly?

Thanks.  I wasn't able to read email much last week so it is nice to
have a summary.

I think I now regret the fact that we (I?) made /bin and /usr/bin the
same thing but I guess those cows are out of the barn.

Wasn't the proposal to allow overriding of /usr/bin and /usr/lib if
someone adds them to their fstab?  I'd feel more comfortable with
allowing the users control over that, I think.  I can see why root would
be a special case but I don't think that /usr/bin and /usr/lib need to
be quite as special.

Wasn't there also an alternate proposal about making '/usr' == '/' unless
it is overridden in /etc/fstab?


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list