Re: FS layout issues for v1.1 (eg., /bin and /usr/bin)

[Mumit Khan <khan at NanoTech dot Wisc dot EDU>]

Andrew Dalgleish <andrewd@axonet.com.au> writes:
> 
> I don't.
> I have a minimal "/bin" similar to the FHS.
> It makes it very easy to set up a new system because this is the only
> directory I *have* to copy - everything else is optional.

My proposal is really to make life easier for the "normal" user, and
not geared for the advanced users like you. You can of course always
split things up and change the mount manually.

I of course have no problem with a separate minimal /bin and then
everything else in /usr/bin, and that implies that we now have to
make sure there is /bin:/usr/bin in user's PATH. And, we need to 
then modify the way we bootstrap the whole tree[1].

The trouble is with /lib, which really does need to have enough of
the libraries that will by default go only to /usr/lib for the next
release.

[1] The Cygwin tree is designed to use the prefix/exec-prefix all the
way, and to have separate /bin, /usr/bin, /lib, /usr/lib, we need to
make certain packages use `prefix=/' (bash, parts of winsup) and 
others `prefix=/usr' (just about everything else), and it's simply
a maintainence headache for what I see minimal benefit.

Regards,
Mumit