From: Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: Duplicate recipes in meta-oe
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:20:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1328559652.2716.217.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F302D77.7030902@balister.org>
On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 14:43 -0500, Philip Balister wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 10:55 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 15:39 +0000, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> >> I talked to Koen at FOSDEM and apparently he prefers having a symlink rather
> >> than a copy for the timezone file. I can't express an opinion one way or
> >> another but it sounds like this one aspect still needs to be resolved - should
> >> this be selectable?
> >
> > I guess this is all bound up with the "/usr on a separate partition"
> > thing. If your position is that the root filesystem is meant to work
> > without /usr mounted then having /etc/localtime be a symlink
> > into /usr/share is probably not going to fly. Conversely, one were to
> > take the view that any reasonable system in the 21st century is going to
> > have / anḍ /usr on the same device, making it be a symlink would be a
> > fine idea.
> >
> > I think probably the right answer is to make "1970s-usr" be a
> > DISTRO_FEATURE and then the timezone recipes (and others) can adapt
> > themselves accordingly.
>
> Does anyone use a system where /usr is on a separate partition?
I'm not aware of any systems that work that way, but I do know that
there have been some patches submitted recently (by Intel folks I think)
to move files around in order to avoid binaries in / linking against
shared libraries in /usr. Presumably the fact that they're running into
these issues indicates that they've got some systems which are using
that sort of filesystem configuration.
And, given that the idea of a separate /usr does still have some
currency in the Unix world, it doesn't seem unreasonable for oe-core to
support it. But equally, where that support carries a cost, I think it
would make sense for there to be an easy way for DISTROs to opt out of
it. Obviously in the case of micro the idea of a separate /usr is
meaningless, but I imagine there are plenty of folks who would want to
keep the /usr filesystem layout but don't need to take special measures
to cope with it being on a different storage device.
p.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-06 20:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-04 17:12 Duplicate recipes in meta-oe Khem Raj
2012-02-04 18:19 ` Khem Raj
2012-02-06 15:39 ` Paul Eggleton
2012-02-06 15:47 ` [oe] " Otavio Salvador
2012-02-06 15:55 ` Phil Blundell
2012-02-06 16:07 ` Koen Kooi
2012-02-06 19:43 ` Philip Balister
2012-02-06 20:02 ` Mark Hatle
2012-02-06 20:20 ` Phil Blundell [this message]
2012-02-06 20:48 ` Mark Hatle
2012-02-06 22:35 ` Phil Blundell
2012-02-06 23:38 ` Mark Hatle
2012-02-06 22:59 ` Khem Raj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1328559652.2716.217.camel@x121e.pbcl.net \
--to=philb@gnu.org \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox