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 1RuXHt-0006uz-Vw for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:43:54 +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 1RuXAA-0005vx-J3 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:35:54 +0100 Message-ID: <1328567740.2716.238.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> From: Phil Blundell To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:35:40 +0000 In-Reply-To: <4F303C92.8050706@windriver.com> References: <1408084.uBj8QddilE@helios> <1328543751.14363.11.camel@phil-desktop> <4F302D77.7030902@balister.org> <1328559652.2716.217.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> <4F303C92.8050706@windriver.com> 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 22:43:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 14:48 -0600, Mark Hatle wrote: > On 2/6/12 2:20 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 14:43 -0500, Philip Balister wrote: > >> On 02/06/2012 10:55 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > >>> 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. > > All existing patches should support / and "usr" being merged as in the micro > system design. If that doesn't work, it's an error in the recipe integration. Yes, agreed. I think there are a few bugs in this area right now (and Mike Crowe sent some patches today for things which got broken in micro by the recent changes for separate /usr) but broadly speaking you're right, there is no reason that the two things can't be supported in parallel. The point I was trying to make in the text above was that, in cases like the timezone thing where there is a real cost to supporting a separate partition for /usr (i.e. making a copy of the file rather than a link) it would be desirable for there to be a mechanism for DISTROs which don't need/want that support to avoid taking the hit. p.