cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/desktop chapter.sgml doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/linuxemu chapter.sgml

[Doug Barton]

On 12/13/2011 05:42, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, December 12, 2011 9:28:43 pm Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 12/10/2011 13:29, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>>> On 12/10/11 15:06, Manolis Kiagias wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2011 10:40 μμ, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 21:32:06 +0000 (UTC) Manolis Kiagias
>>>>> <manolis at FreeBSD.org>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> CCing re@, emulation@ and nwhitehorn@ due to a possible impact in the
>>>>> upcomming release.
>>>>>
>>>>>>    Modified files:
>>>>>>      en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/desktop chapter.sgml
>>>>>>      en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/linuxemu chapter.sgml
>>>>>>    Log:
>>>>>>    Use /compat/linux/proc instead of /usr/compat/linux/proc as the
>>>>>> mount point of linproc in the examples, since:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    - linux_base always installs to /compat and creates it as a
>>>>>> directory if it does not exist as a symlink
>>>>>>    - Custom installations (not done by sysinstall(8)) may not
>>>>>> have /compat at all
>>>>>>    - The linuxemu chapter uses /compat anyway (except a single
>>>>>> example, fixed)
>>>>>>    - The new bsdinstall(8) does not create /compat either as directory
>>>>>> or symlink
>>>>> Looks like a bug in bsdinstall (and linux_base) to me. What you write
>>>>> here means that a new release with bsdinstall instead of sysinstall may
>>>>> cause problems where /compat is in a small partition and /usr in a big
>>>>> partition (even if it creates a big one by default, an user may change
>>>>> this). I suggest to fix bsdinstall before the release of 9.0. It also
>>>>> changes what is expected by long-term users.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this was discussed in the PR (see
>>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-doc/2011-December/019270.html
>>>> ). I think the best and safer way would be for bsdinstall to create
>>>> the link if possible.
>>>
>>> This is very easy to do, and the correct place is in
>>> /usr/src/usr.sbin/bsdinstall/scripts/config. I don't have a good sense
>>> of what the correct logic is, however, and so would appreciate either
>>> guidance or patches from emulation-types.
>>
>> I don't understand why the linux_base ports are not sorting this out on
>> their own. Why should this be a function of the installer?
> 
> It's a sysadmin's decision what /compat is.  It could be a directory on /
> (which is fine if you have one-big filesystem for everything).  It could be
> a mountpoint for another filesystem.  It could be a symlink to a directory
> on some other filesystem.  All these are valid, and the various ABI packages
> should not be trying to set that policy. 

Right to all that ... I wasn't suggesting that the ports set a policy,
just that they should sort out whether a /compat exists or not, and if
not, create a sensible one.

> I do think the installer can set a
> good initial policy for this just as it can for /home. 

This is where I disagree. Everyone needs a /home, not all of our users
need /compat. The installer should be focused on things that everyone
needs. The ports that need fairings should be responsible for creating
them.


Doug

-- 

		[^L]

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/