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... > 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. 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. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
