Rework FAQ machinery to be based on tags instead of filenames.

1 files changed, 45 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/faq/slash_usr_symlink/discussion.mdwn b/faq/slash_usr_symlink/discussion.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..219e14e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/faq/slash_usr_symlink/discussion.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
+
+[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
+id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
+document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
+any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
+Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
+is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
+License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
+
+[[!tag open_issue_documentation]]
+
+
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-02-01
+
+    <marcusb> I remember the time when we had a /usr symlink.  Now fedora 17
+      will move / to /usr and have /foo symlinks.  :)
+    <marcusb> braunr:
+      http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge
+    <marcusb> braunr: fedora and others are merging /bin, /sbin and some other
+      into /usr
+    <marcusb> braunr: back in 1998 we tried for two years or so to have /usr ->
+      ..  in Debian GNU/Hurd, but eventually we gave up on it, because it broke
+      some stuff
+    <gnu_srs> marcusb: Hi, which one is better (in your opinion): / or /usr?
+    <marcusb> gnu_srs: fedora says that using /usr allows better separation of
+      distribution files and machine-local files
+    <braunr> marcusb: won't it break remote /usr ?
+    <marcusb> so you can atomically mount the OS files to /usr
+    <marcusb> gnu_srs: but in the end, it's a wash
+    <marcusb> personally, I think every package should get its own directory
+    <braunr> marcusb: what PATH then ?
+    <marcusb> braunr: well, I guess you'd want to assemble a union filesystem
+      for a POSIX shell 
+    <braunr> marcusb: i don't see what you mean :/
+    <braunr> ah this comes from Lennart Poettering
+    <marcusb> braunr: check out for example how http://nixos.org/ does it
+    <manuel> braunr: something like, union /package1/bin /package2/bin
+      /package3/bin for /bin, /package1/lib /package2/lib /package3/lib for
+      /lib, etc. I guess
+    <braunr> manuel: would that scale well ?
+    <marcusb> the idea that there is only one correct binary for each program
+      with the name foo is noble, but a complete illusion that hides the
+      complexity of the actual configuration management task
+    <braunr> marcusb: right