On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 06:01:37PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Apr 3 09:56, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> For 1.7, I think we ought to decouple /bin <> /usr/bin and /lib <> >>> /usr/lib. The rationale for keeping those linked no longer applies in >>> the modern setup.exe world. >> Full ACK! However, this needs a bit of careful revisiting of some of >> the packages. For instance, assuming the Cygwin DLL will go to /bin, >> cygrunsrv should also reside in /bin when we do this, not in /usr/bin, >> obviously. Right now I must admit that I prectically don't care if my >> packages install the binaries in /bin or /usr/bin. > > Yep. A few things off the top of my head: > > 1) the shells need to install both in /bin and /usr/bin. This is up to the > individual maintainers when they build their -1.7 versions, but to take on > super-duper important shell: > Or "tough. you want to run /bin/bash, ensure /usr/bin is in your PATH"
Yes. Making duplicate copies is asking for trouble. > 2) build tools (netrel, gbs, cygport) might need a few additions/tweaks to > support any of the above. > >> I don't know. I assume I just took this as it is. I guess the >> only reason to create user mounts to begin with was, so that any >> non-privileged user can create mount points, too, for a pure >> "just me" installation in a restricted environment. >> However, that's not really necessary anymore with /etc/fstab. >> So I agree, we can simply get rid of fstab.$SID. > > No, please don't...I like my /desktop mount... You don't need fstab to do mounts. It's always possible to add a mount to your .bashrc or something. That's what you'd do on linux if you wanted similar functionality. cgf
