Re: Another readahead issue

[Matthew Saltzman <mjs CLEMSON EDU>]

On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 08:36 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> 
> > Not sure if I should have started a new thread, but...
> > 
> > If you *are* going to keep or eventually revive readahead, it would be
> > nice to deal with the fact that all the firefox entries in default.later
> > are /usr/lib/firefox-2.0.0.3/, but the current firefox is
> > firefox-2.0.0.5.
> 
> imo, avoid the mess, firefox could use an unversioned folder,
> say, /usr/lib/firefox.  I assume there's good reasons not to do this tho,
> else the firefox packagin/maintainer would be doing this already, right? :)

I thought of that (and had the same question).  Also thought
of /etc/readahead.d/readahead.early.d/, etc. and having packages include
their own readahead files.

I don't pretend to know enough to have a preference or if there's a
better mechanism than either of those.

> 
> -- Rex
> 
> 
-- 
                Matthew Saltzman

Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs