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

Re: options: was Red Hat is moving from / to /usr/

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 06:55:18PM -0700, Gordon Haverland wrote:
> I'm a UN*X dinosaur.  I started using UN*X in 1984.
> I don't like this idea of folding /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin into 
> /usr/bin.
> I think the reasons to segregate /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin 
> and anything in /usr/local/* still exist today.

What are those reasons?

I agree with /usr/local being separate, but /bin and /usr/bin?
What is the advantage to having them separate on a running
system?  Other than historical practice?

 gives a bunch of historical uses which are no longer useful.)

I don't agree with the Fedora strategy of migrating /bin to
/usr/bin etc.  I think if anything we should do what would make
most sense in the long run, which would be to eliminate /usr
entirely and most the content of /usr to /.  Migrating to /usr
is a bit simpler for partitioning, but not particularly logical.

> I want more segregation, not less.  Actually, I've wanted all the 
> config for /usr to be in /etc/usr (which is a symlink to /usr/etc) 
> for a long time.

On a system managed with a package manager, this makes no sense--
the content of /usr is intimately tied to the content of /etc.
In other contexts it might be useful, but for Debian it is not.


  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

Reply to: