sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Casey Harkins <charkins AT upl.cs.wisc.edu>
- To: Hamish Greig <hgreig AT bigpond.net.au>
- Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime
- Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 15:12:04 -0600 (CST)
Debian, RedHat and LFS are all copying it now instead of symlinking:
http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=259
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=19140
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91228
Actually looking at the debian bug, I'm not sure if that is what they are
doing or not. I can only think of those two solutions, copying and
including /usr/share/zoneinfo on / partition (if /usr is separate).
Copying /usr/share/zoneinfo to rootfs idea came from this message:
http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/pipermail/yellowdog-general/2002-April/000407.html
casey@brak:~$ du -sh /usr/share/zoneinfo/
5.0M /usr/share/zoneinfo
The extra 5M shouldn't be a huge issue, but it is sort of a hack. I don't
really care which way we go, or if someone can think of a better way, but
I do think that we should make /etc/localtime available without requiring
/usr to be mounted.
I'm also seeing some messages where people have a
/usr/share/zoneinfo/localtime symlink pointing to the the actual zoneinfo
file, and have a copy of the file in /etc/localtime.
Thoughts?
-casey
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Hamish Greig wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 14:56, Casey Harkins wrote:
> > Just checked, that will work perfectly. Anyone see any reason not to do
> > this? If not, I'll bug it with this fix.
> >
> > -casey
> there has to be a more elegant way of doing this, how do other distros get
> around the fact /usr may not be mounted in runlevel 1 ?
> I am a firm believer that things are installed into /usr/share if they are
> arch non-specific and can be shared over a network, creating local copies in
> the rootfs is not a solution IMO just a hack(I should know, I do enough of
> them), it might solve a few peoples short term problems but long term will
> cause more trouble than it's worth I think.
> Hamish
> --
> IRC nick: drmoriarty
> SMGL co-conspirator
> # Do You SMGL!?
> # http://www.sourcemage.org/
> # Linux so advanced it may as well be magic!
> # In SMGL land, on quiet nights you can hear the ms-windows machines
> rebooting.
> ANTI-SPAM WARNING: I delete any html message from my server without reading
> Please use text only
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
>
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime
, (continued)
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime,
Hamish Greig, 11/05/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime, Eric Sandall, 11/06/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime, Robin Cook, 11/06/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime,
Casey Harkins, 11/06/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime,
Eric Sandall, 11/06/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime,
Casey Harkins, 11/06/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime,
Mads Laursen, 11/07/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime,
Casey Harkins, 11/07/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime, Paul Mahon, 11/08/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime,
Hamish Greig, 11/08/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime, Casey Harkins, 11/08/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime, Seth Alan Woolley, 11/08/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime,
Casey Harkins, 11/07/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime,
Mads Laursen, 11/07/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime,
Casey Harkins, 11/06/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime,
Eric Sandall, 11/06/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] /etc/localtime,
Hamish Greig, 11/05/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.