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 =CE=BC=CE=BC, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 21:32:06 +0000 (UTC) Manolis Kiagias
> >>> <manolis@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 directo=
ry
> >>>> 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 m=
ay
> >>> 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.ht=
ml
> >> ). I think the best and safer way would be for bsdinstall to create
> >> the link if possible.
> >=20
> > 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.
>=20
> 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. I do think the installer can set a
good initial policy for this just as it can for /home. Now, using the defa=
ult
layout the installer could just leave /compat as a dir on /. Many folks
still customize their layout to make /usr or /home separate, etc. It might
be nice if the installer "noticed" that you created a separate /usr and
symlinked /compat to /usr/compat to preserve previous behavior in that case.
It turns out, though, that this also works just fine if you have the one-big
/, (since usr/compat will be on the same fs), so the simplest solution might
be to just always symlink it for now. This reduces POLA, but since it is o=
nly
done at install time, the sysadmin can always customize it post-install.
=2D-=20
John Baldwin
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"