Re: RES: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec
Anthony DeRobertis <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in
>> a teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it "helps"
>> that have been mentioned here, it actually doesn't.
> Well, I think it helps in the case of network mounting it; it is
> easier to mount a non-root FS than the root fs. Given this isn't a
> huge benefit, and isn't for a huge number of people either.
You can mount /bin from the network on top of a boot-time /bin. It's
very easy. "mount foo:.../shared-bin /bin" or whatever the syntax is
for your filesystem type.
> Well, I didn't ask for great levels of proof. I asked for /any/
> proof. The /usr split has already been done; it'd be more work to
> re-merge /usr and / than it would be to leave it the way it is. The
> same can't be said for libexec.
Actually, the Hurd has shown it's trivial. "ln -s / /usr" is really
sufficient. Then you can phase things out over time.
> Sharing the root fs is possible via special kernel support or via
> initrd. /bin I guess is doable alone, but would require some nice
> initrd hacking.
No hacking is necessary. Sharing / is a bad idea, but sharing any
subdirectory is trivial.