On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 05:28:47PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Hey, I can agree to that. Can you agree that /usr/bin could then be a > > symlink or linkfarm to /usr/target/usr/bin? > > No. It does not make sense to put the native architecture into a sysroot, > that would be a violation of the FHS. Sysroots are only for the special use > cases of cross-compiling or software emulation. A normal user should never > see one. "That violates the FHS" isn't a reason by itself. FHS compliance is a good goal, but maybe the FHS doesn't support our needs as currently implemented; it's not like it's carved in stone, and we can work with the Linux Foundation and other distributions to update it as necessary. See the addition of /usr/libexec in 3.0, for a practical example. Or see the changes we worked to get for clarity around /opt/<provider>. But that said: I don't you're completely right about this being forbidden by the FHS in the current incarnation. /usr/bin is given the title "Most user commands" and "This is the primary directory of executable commands on the system." Under Specific Options, the FHS says "The following files, or symbolic links to files, must be in /usr/bin, if the corresponding subsystem is installed".... so symlinks are already an acceptable way to fulfill the /usr/bin requirements. Whether /usr/target/usr/bin would be acceptable for the "real" binaries is more "currently unhandled" than "forbidden". If we *were* to decide that we wanted to do it this way, we could figure something out. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
