Hi! We currently have the following paths: /packages /system/packages /system/package-links /boot/home/config/packages In /system/packages, we have hpkg files. In /boot/home/config/packages, we have hpkg files. So far, this seems consistent. But in /packages, we suddenly have package-links, just as in /system/package-links. IMHO this is inconsistent and not what it is. There are no packages in /packages, just symlinks. To me, this is quite confusing. Why is /packages suddenly symlinks? I would expect that of /system/package-links, but not of /packages. And why does /system/package-links contains all package links, even those from /boot/home/config/packages? From a user point of view, this just makes no sense. Or am I really the only one finding this inconsistent? Therefore, my proposal would be: Remove /packages and /system/package-links, instead use /package-links and mount the virtual filesystem there. That would give the following layout: /package-links /system/packages /boot/home/config/packages or, more consistent: /package-links /boot/system/packages /boot/home/config/packages With this, the name makes clear what it is and there is no ambiguity. I do know that this means we need to recompile all packages, thus my proposal would be to create a /package -> /package-links symlink for the meantime until all packages have been recompiled. We can still do this now, but later this will be more troublesome. Oh, and while we're at it: What's the point of having /system -> /boot/system? Just to save 5 characters at the price of cluttering /? I do know that there were heavy objections to adding a /usr -> / symlink for compatibility, but why then a /system -> /boot/system symlink? -- Jonathan