Re: Progress on a "spiritual" derivation of GoboLinux

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Michael Homer <[email protected]>wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Trans <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:35 AM, kenneth marken <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Some plans for 015 was more ambitious than that.
> >>
> >> They included reworking /System/Links into something similar to the HFS
> >> root layout for ease of compiling (/System/Index was it?).
> >>
> >> I think the plan was that you could in essence drop a union mount on top
> >> of the new /S/L, set the --prefix to /S/L, compile and empty the result
> into
> >> a /Programs/x.y.z dir tree for symlinking back into /S/L.
> >
> >
> > I read up some more on that thanks to links provided (thank guys!). One
> > thing I did not quite git though. Is S/I/ going to contain bin/,
> include/,
> > share/ and so on instead of S/L's current Executables, Header and Shared?
> /System/Index would be the same as, and possibly actually called,
> /usr. That was the point, to be an FHS analogue that everything could
> work against and use as an installation path.
>

I see. Then this /usr directory (the upper writable layer via ViewFS
actually) would be copied to Programs. But woudn't there still need to be
some links, e.g what would normally be in /usr/bin and /usr/share for
instance. How is that handled?

To the other messages, categorical namespacing of programs is silly,
> arbitrary, and purposeless.
>

Could you elaborate on that? I am not 100% sure I know what you are
referring to.

_______________________________________________
gobolinux-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-users