This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: More: [1.7] packaging problem? Both /usr/bin/ and /usr/lib/ are non-empty


On May 11 16:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 04:31:05PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On May 11 15:55, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On May 11 09:41, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:32:01AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> > >The idea is to convert the /usr/bin and /usr/lib mount points also to
> >> > >non-changable mount points since they are supposed to point always to
> >> > >/bin and /lib.
> >> > >
> >> > >Right now we have this somewhat fragile construct that base-cygwin must
> >> > >create the /etc/fstab file first, otherwise the mount points are not in
> >> > >place when later postinstall scripts access files in /usr/bin or
> >> > >/usr/lib.
> >> > >
> >> > >It seems a more robust solution to create all three mount points in Cygwin
> >> > >itself and make them readonly.
> >> > >
> >> > >Good? Bad? Ugly?
> >> > 
> >> > Thanks.  I wasn't able to read email much last week so it is nice to
> >> > have a summary.
> >> > 
> >> > I think I now regret the fact that we (I?) made /bin and /usr/bin the
> >> > same thing but I guess those cows are out of the barn.
> >> > 
> >> > Wasn't the proposal to allow overriding of /usr/bin and /usr/lib if
> >> > someone adds them to their fstab?  I'd feel more comfortable with
> >> > allowing the users control over that, I think.  I can see why root would
> >> > be a special case but I don't think that /usr/bin and /usr/lib need to
> >> > be quite as special.
> >> 
> >> Actually, the whole idea is to generate default /usr/bin and /usr/lib
> >> entries.  Whether or not they are readonly is probably not as important.
> >> We lived with overridable entries all the time, so I have no strong
> >> opinion.  Just generating default entries seems to be a good thing.
> >
> >Uh, I forgot my own mail.  Here's the reason again why R/O entries
> >might be a good thing:
> >
> >http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2009-05/msg00004.html
> 
> I don't understand how that fstab would ever mean anything if we're not
> allowing the overriding of "/".  As I said, I think that the / entry in
> /etc/fstab should be ignored in favor of finding the root from where the
> cygwin dll is located.  We could add a "force" option to the "/" option
> in /etc/fstab if we wanted to override the default behavior.

How exactly does that influence the /usr/bin and /usr/lib entries?
Did you see my patch in
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2009-05/msg00030.html ?
Adding a "force" option is not much extra code.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]