From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.89] helo=fmsmga101.fm.intel.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T6mIy-0003Aw-Jv for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:43:54 +0200 Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com ([209.85.214.175]) by mga01.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 29 Aug 2012 10:31:27 -0700 Received: by obblz20 with SMTP id lz20so1552817obb.6 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:31:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=LnweXxZic83ldU9nK3m7npsD30HQYlPbP+aTUrAvatQ=; b=jSptCayQ7SxEa6kAnAc9dQOFiXikV8D6gYBLdozH850WDy5/USgDptn8+UoaTm1+yn UdaJ+rLb98B97sw2vXSBPksYWu9/mP2lF/mOeDRgEuFgAfPEYKUQ3oZuHsVGS+Eevr+W pwqkkIleS8hJ+2lQlSAg6TGRkyQ4BHrne77mxUW6eNanb89RffKkm9NrEBfEBS7s/2ay 3gxrTfmOwWYeqR2cZHjPZziTKHAT25ek84EegCz/nDQCMhGJ56N3TinwOV1/jE/lheiU SQnGxw2fxGsKyMB7qTGgAaSB73mWag7YjlnseL7Spf7mflXyRk2UO19zWjYpAcyUnNrW KSMA== Received: by 10.60.28.162 with SMTP id c2mr2096424oeh.3.1346261486638; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:31:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.79.105 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:31:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4976204.OdG2Ohk3KU@helios> References: <4976204.OdG2Ohk3KU@helios> From: "Burton, Ross" Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:31:06 +0100 Message-ID: To: Paul Eggleton X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlqUiLEslvxkQ9dNGhzV9+/YrBfuTRE9HS2EkNX3i3fK9u4ZBKUsjQL8qyZOsMCMnshjy7p Cc: Koen Kooi , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tzdata: install /etc/localtime alongside /etc/timezone X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:43:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 29 August 2012 18:01, Paul Eggleton wrote: > Well, the TSC as a group is still keen on supporting it last time it was > discussed (a few meetings ago) as Koen mentions. > > Surely this specific situation is pretty easy to solve for everyone using a > postinst which is able to apply some logic - i.e. if the file is on a separate > filesystem then cp the file, otherwise symlink it. Sounds like a lot of extra work when the choice is fairly clear. Either we don't support split file systems and mandate initramfs for network boots, or we do our best to support it. With a decision on that the choice of cp vs ln is obvious. Ross