lucky13
Group: Members
Posts: 1478
Joined: Feb. 2007 |
 |
Posted: Mar. 02 2008,22:46 |
 |
| Quote | Crazy idea:
1. What if '.uci' extensions were writable?
2. What if '.unc' extensions were changed to write only to '/opt'. This would be a complement to '.uci' extensions.
The '.unc' can write into a '.uci' directory. But it can't write into itself (self-referencing is impossible).
3. Lastly, we could retain the '.tar.gz' extensions - for extensions that only write to '/opt/bin'. |
I meant to add in my previous response I wanted to think more about these before passing judgment. I've given them more thought.
I'm neutral on the first point although I see limited usefulness to it. If one wants writable extension directories in /opt, one can already use tar.gz now (or even UNC, though I don't know why one would do that since it seems it goes against what unionfs is all about). What I wrote previously about issues of overlays on mount points (i.e., UCI directories) still concerns me.
I don't care for the second point at all. The whole idea behind using filesystem overlays like unionfs is to write across the operating system. Application extensions aren't the only thing for which UNCs are useful. They can overwrite /home and /etc, making things like configuration files portable or even easier to try out (I've been using overlays similarly for "portable" settings between different distros, remasters, etc., so I can carry over WPA and other settings and keep them in the directory structure I normally use).
As I wrote above, you can already compile a UNC to install to /opt. It seems that it would be redundant to what's already in UCI. It also begs the question why you would need to have unionfs at all for it in the first place and give up the leverage it affords of laying files and directories over a traditional directory structure. I don't want it to be limited to /opt.
The third option makes some sense but I don't think it's practical. If you require compiling executables to /opt/bin, what about all the share and lib files in self-contained apps? Those don't belong in a bin directory. If you'll end up with things installing in /opt/share, etc., I'll pass. I'd rather continue to use links between executables and /opt/bin.
Personally, I'd prefer to see tar.gz deprecated altogether in favor of UCI and, likewise, deprecate DSL in favor of UNC. I know that's not likely to happen -- especially the DSL-UNC thing because some users will choose to not use unionfs. But to make things more nomadic, I think it makes more sense to use overlays and compressed/(un)mountable applications.
--------------
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)
|
.
DSL Market ,
Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic
