On 20.02.2015 10:33, Stephan Aßmus wrote:
There is the argument that this somehow degrades package management to
second class citizen. But I don't know how strong that argument is. For
the hypothetical users that don't need to know about these internals, it
should not matter by definition. The others are the power-users and
developers. And if it makes (at least some of) their lives easier, I
don't see much against it.
The argument isn't so much that users may be confused -- as you write,
depending on their level they won't be or they won't even know -- it's
that this is a weird way of organizing things: Virtually all software
lives in a subdirectory while the prominent places (/system/* and
~/config/*) are essentially empty.
And finally, since you have been a proponent of a (simplified) union FS
solution in the past, please note that moving the mount point of our
virtual file systems away from where the union FS would have to be
mounted and instead using those locations for actual file storage would
be a step in the wrong direction for that purpose. So should we consider
a union FS solution the way to go eventually (even post beta 1 or R1),
moving mount points would be detrimental.
