From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bennett Todd Subject: Re: software packaging and ReiserFS v4 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 17:37:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20030903213742.GA13146@rahul.net> References: <20030903165409.GD4714@rahul.net> <3F565A8F.4010209@botz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SUOF0GtieIMvvwua" Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F565A8F.4010209@botz.org> List-Id: To: J?rgen Botz Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2003-09-03T17:18:07 J?rgen Botz: > >With ReiserFS v4 its as natural as can be; a file /usr/bin/foo, > >installed by a package foo, would simply have a symlink > > > > /usr/bin/foo/pkg -> /var/lib/pkg/foo > > > >Besides scaling elegantly and staying wonderfully simple, this has > >the additional otherwise-impossible feature that the package > >attribution automatically correctly updates if you move the file > >(although the forward mappings within /var/lib/pkg/foo wouldn't > >update automagically). >=20 > They could, with the right plug-in. A plug-in to reach in and edit the forward references in the package database misses my vision of "simple"; I think I'd rather live without it (after all, we do now) than live with it. > Without such a plug-in I don't see why you need reiser4 for > this... [...] I'd have an executable, /usr/bin/wc, installed by the textutils-2.0.21-5 package, and its reverse link would be /usr/bin/wc/pkg -> /var/lib/pkg/textutils-2.0.21-5 How would you do that without Reiser4's ability to pun the same pathname as both a file and an associated directory? > in fact, this kind of scheme has already been implemented > in some older package managers. There are several LISA papers > talking about this kind of thing since the early 90s. In > particular the CMU "depot" system comes to mind. A different vision; I prefer for my /usr/bin/wc to be a real file, not a symlink to /usr/depot/textutils-2.0.21-5/bin/wc or whatever. Different people, different tastes:-). > But take this idea further.... in my ideal system there is no /usr. > /usr is just a historical artifact, anyway. It serves some pragmatic roles; distinguishing the minimum needed to get booted up (/bin, /sbin, ...) from the stuff that's only needed multiuser (/usr/bin, ...) is sometimes helpful. And a small, rarely-accessed, readonly / is less prone to damage. > Nor is there a $HOME. Depending on your point of view (more > about that below) there is only /, /bin, [...] The key to this > are what we might call "perspectives". Every user has their own > perspective, or maybe more than one that they can chose between. > [...] I _think_ this was big in Plan 9, if I'm not mistaken. Different folks are game for different things. I'm rebellious enough to be fantasizing a nice simple software package manager that can easily allow an rpm user to say "bpm" instead and have all the same commands work --- or have all but a couple of them trivially implementable using normal native system commands for that matter --- by taking advantage of Reiserfs 4's open-ended attributes dir stuff. But I'm not so sublime about completely abandoning the Filesystem Heirarchy Standard. -Bennett --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/Vl8lHZWg9mCTffwRAiNMAJ4p2GiZFa1HMCakHpGQELsVMPpQ8wCeIIsm YJhcc5aspnVBS4pypoZnifc= =Uuav -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua--