| |||||||||||||
iff you accept /* -> /usr/*, then why not instead /usr/* -> /*iff you accept /* -> /usr/*, then why not instead /usr/* -> /*Posted Mar 1, 2012 21:11 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)In reply to: iff you accept /* -> /usr/*, then why not instead /usr/* -> /* by filteredperception Parent article: Various notes on /usr unification
You know....
bringing the /me directory into the conversation is just unnecessary complexity.
-jef
(Log in to post comments)
iff you accept /* -> /usr/*, then why not instead /usr/* -> /* Posted Mar 1, 2012 23:48 UTC (Thu) by filteredperception (guest, #5692) [Link]
+1 for the joke jef, but cmon, I know _you_ could have given a legitimate answer to my question... Seriously, what is the short answer for 'why have /usr at all in the post merge world?' (as anything but the compatability symlink, versus putting the opposite compatability symplinks under /)
iff you accept /* -> /usr/*, then why not instead /usr/* -> /* Posted Mar 1, 2012 23:52 UTC (Thu) by filteredperception (guest, #5692) [Link]
actually maybe I'm just being stupid. network mounted /usr. Probably I should follow one of these links and either read for the first time, or more likely discover something I never bothered to remember, as to what 'usr' means. (?SharedResource).
|
|||||||||||||