Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 14:00:29 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: current@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: TRUE and FALSE Message-ID: <5415.793490429@freefall.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Feb 95 15:11:39 EST." <9502222011.AA08273@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > And that seems a little silly (so is exporting the entire NFS tree into > > /usr/include, while we're talking about silly, but that's another diatribe > > entirely). > > Hello, Jordan? Wake up! > > wollman@khavrinen(11)$ ls -l /usr/include/nfs > lrwxr-xr-x 1 bin bin 8 Feb 21 15:03 /usr/include/nfs@ -> /sys/nfs Thank you, Garrett. However, you complelely and utterly missed my point. When I said "exported" I meant exactly that: One way or another we have now /usr/include/nfs/* containing the full NFS sources rather than just the relevant header files. If you're any kind of purist at all, this is immediately obvious as being rather evil. If I wanted to move my header files from one place to another I could easily be forgiven for wanting to simply tar up the contents of /usr/include and get ONLY the header files (rather than a pastiche' of links, files, sources and god-only-knows-what). To put it another way, the /usr/include directory follows NO consistent paradigm - some things are links, others are copies of stuff, still others are just pointers into the sources. If you make with SHARED=copies then this unifies some of it by copying stuff across, but it could then be argued that the "non-copies" case should see /usr/include as *only* a link farm, with no actual files in there. Am I the only one who sees this as somewhat inconsistent? Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5415.793490429>