From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.pbcl.net ([88.198.119.4] helo=hetzner.pbcl.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RuVBS-00030f-Go for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:29:06 +0100 Received: from blundell.swaffham-prior.co.uk ([91.216.112.25] helo=[192.168.114.6]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RuV3j-0005lE-CH for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:21:07 +0100 Message-ID: <1328559652.2716.217.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> From: Phil Blundell To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:20:52 +0000 In-Reply-To: <4F302D77.7030902@balister.org> References: <1408084.uBj8QddilE@helios> <1328543751.14363.11.camel@phil-desktop> <4F302D77.7030902@balister.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Duplicate recipes in meta-oe X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:29:06 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=20 > >> than a copy for the timezone file. I can't express an opinion one way = or=20 > >> another but it sounds like this one aspect still needs to be resolved = - should=20 > >> this be selectable? > >=20 > > 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 t= o > > have / and=CC=A3 /usr on the same device, making it be a symlink would = be a > > fine idea. > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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.