[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RES: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec

Peter Samuelson <peter@p12n.org> writes:

> [Thomas Bushnell BSG]
>> Um:  
>> /bin/mount foo:whatever /bin
> That's a huge administrative hassle.  Not only do you have to figure
> out what programs and libraries /bin/mount depends on so you can make
> sure they're on your real root partition, but the packaging system
> doesn't - and shouldn't - do anything to help you keep the two copies
> of /bin in sync.

Um, that "figuring out" is *exactly* the figuring out that you are
*already* doing in maintaining a separate /usr.  If you want to
document this in a reliable way somewhere for the people who are doing
this, great!

> You would put up with all *that* for a 6-megabyte savings on your root
> filesystem?

My /usr is rather more than 6 MB.

> This is another absurdity brought to us all by the Committee for
> Considering Theoretical Angles Without Bothering to Look at Real
> Numbers.  I should mention that I'm still waiting for your benchmark
> results on how a drastic reduction in /usr/lib size speeds up the
> runtime linker.  On *any* filesystem, O(n)-lookups or not.

Your demand to run a benchmark does not translate to an obligation on
my part to run it.

Reply to: