Re: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
> think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
> semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc?
I don't see a semantic difference between /bin and /usr/bin (or /lib and
/usr/lib). IMHO, the only reason for /bin and /lib is that some programs
and libraries need to be available before is /usr is mounted.
> Surely the reason who have these different directories is to make
> logical distinctions, keeping different kinds of things in different
> directories. If the argument for combining libexec and lib is that
> "it does no harm", then I see why we should not put *everything* into
> lib. It would make it simpler.
That wasn't my argument. My argument is that I don't consider shared
libraries and internal executables "different kinds of things." They
are both binaries loaded and executed by a program.
If there is a _technical_ necessity to separate them (like directory
search times), this would be similar to /bin vs /usr/bin, which are
also separate for technical, but not semantic reasons.
Martin
Reply to: