[uClibc] Re: The naming wars continue...

Denis Vlasenko vda at port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua
Fri Oct 29 19:00:18 UTC 2004


> > > Read-only /usr is required according to the FHS, and at least on Debian 
> > > a read-only /usr works without problems.
> > 
> > Indeed. And that's what I use. In /etc/apt/apt.conf I have:
> > 
> >     DPkg {
> >         // Auto re-mounting of a readonly /usr
> > 	Pre-Invoke {"mount -o remount,rw /usr";};
> > 	Post-Invoke {"mount -o remount,ro /usr";};
> >     }
> > 
> > > A bigger problem might be to properly support it in the package manager.
> > 
> > Yep. Apt knows about it, but dpkg doesn't. And remounting /usr read-only
> > fails if files are in use.
> 
> I was more thinking about the problems like a database upgrade requiring 
> changes to e.g. the system tables of the database handled in the 
> {pre,post}inst scripts. It even becomes more tricky since a postinst 
> script might make changes to both /usr and such required actions.

tables of a database mustn't be under /usr.
/var/$some_path seems appropriate to me.

(They may be visible under /usr via some symlink, but "real" location
must be somewhere else.)
--
vda




More information about the uClibc mailing list