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

Corinna Vinschen
Mon May 11 14:31:00 GMT 2009

On May 11 15:55, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On May 11 09:41, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:32:01AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >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
> > >/usr/lib.
> > >
> > >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.
> Actually, the whole idea is to generate default /usr/bin and /usr/lib
> entries.  Whether or not they are readonly is probably not as important.
> We lived with overridable entries all the time, so I have no strong
> opinion.  Just generating default entries seems to be a good thing.

Uh, I forgot my own mail.  Here's the reason again why R/O entries
might be a good thing:


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list