Subject: /usr/share NOT?
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: David Gilbert <>
List: current-users
Date: 04/21/1996 22:01:46
	I have four NetBSD machines... Amiga, Sun3, Sun4 (using the
god-given correct byte order :) and i386 (using the evil byte order).
Anyways, I have noticed that the i386 (the only one of the three to be
starving for disk) cannot share /usr/share with the others.

	While I do have enough space to leave another /usr/share on
another machine for it, it seem a waste (to me) to have a non-shared
/usr/share (after all).

	I've noticed in particular that the fortune database and the
localization (or wherever the clib error messages come from) database
are non-shareable.

	Is it desireable that we either make these files shareable, or
alternatively have /usr/share/motorola and /usr/share/intel to hold
the files that are not shared.

	If we can have a decision on this, I volenteer to implement
either of these solutions (but only if there's a good chance my
patches are to make it into the tree).

	Which brings me to my last point.  vi will not run without
/usr/share.  This is a downright pain in the ass if /usr/share is
nfs.  It would be an improvement if vi would kick itself into 'open
mode' when it couldn't divine the terminal properly.


|David Gilbert, PCI, Richmond Hill, Ontario.  | Two things can only be     |
|Mail:         |  equal if and only if they |
|               |   are precisely opposite.  |