Re: [bam@snoopy.apana.org.au: Re: Settle for /usr symlink (!)]

[Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>]

In article <[🔎] u1hr9qzvjmm.fsf@pusey.mit.edu> you write:
>> 1.b) breaks Debian policy as it doesn't comply with file system
>>         standard.
>
>(1.b) is not true; I was very careful to make sure that the FSSTND
>does not require a separate /usr.  (You can't get rid of /usr, but you
>can make it a symlink, and still comply with FSSTND.)

I stand corrected. Reading the archives on the GNU-Hurd web site
led me to believe that it wasn't FSSTND compliant.

This means that any Debian package which can't cope with having
/usr a symlink to / breaks policy and needs to be corrected, so
I guess I have already answered one of my previous questions
to Marcus.

However, I bet FSSTND never intended /usr to point to / ;-)
--
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>