[haiku-development] Re: [HaikuPorts-devs] sed
- From: Brecht Machiels <brecht@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:20:31 +0100
Hi!
At Monday, 08-03-2010 on 22:32 Ingo Weinhold wrote:
> > So much for the theory. In practice, I think we can live with moving at
> > least some stuff out of /system. As long as the system basically works,
> > I don't think this would be too bad.
> > Ie. it would be nice if the system still booted after you removed
> > /boot/common, but IMO it would be okay if not everything would work
> > after that. At least you've removed your user data base, so you can
> > expect things to be broken some.
>
> Mmh, that doesn't stike me as a particularly coherent vision. I would find
> it way more consequent, if we defined a certain set of packages as part of
> the "base" system and installed all of them to /system. That kind of
> clashes with the /system == read-only idea -- at least a part of each
> package would need to be installed in /boot/common anyway. Furthermore ATM
> we don't have subdirectories for certain read-only stuff (e.g. "man" or
> "info") in /system either.
Is it really necesary to store packages in (or mount at) two locations? You can
have all packages appear under one folder. As you say,you can simply mark
certain packages as being system packages.
At Begeistert there was talk about having the runtime loader present different
dependency packages depending on what application is being run (some
application requiring another version of a library than another application for
example). Similarly, this can be done in a multi-user environment, where
different packages are visible to each user. Would these then still be mounted
under /boot/common? Or would (for example) /boot/software show all packages
accesible by the user?
These views are perhaps a bit extreme. But at least the multi-user aspect
should be kept in mind.
Regards,
Brecht
Other related posts:
