Re: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec
Martin Dickopp <email@example.com> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs / distinction,
then there is no "before /usr is mounted".
> 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.
Sure, and documentation and libraries are both "files opened by
The difference is that libraries are also generic things that are
shared by many programs, and searched by the linker, whereas
executables are not.
In fact, a library is "loaded and executed" by only two programs (ld
and ld.so) in the normal scheme of things.