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

Re: from / to /usr/: a summary

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 08:17:25PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Not quite.  Redhat and others want to make this change (moving binaries
> and libraries from / into /usr) not just for ease of maintenance (though
> that makes sense too) but for several rather interesting reasons.  It
> would consolidate almost everything managed by the package manager under
> /usr.

That's not interesting at all.

> Configuration would live in /etc (with templates possibly provided by
> packages, though more and more packages follow the "override files in /usr
> with files in /etc" approach and ship no /etc configuration by default).

That's the FHS and has nothing to do with moving things.
> /var includes bits that change, which should not normally include
> package-managed bits.

That's also in the FHS.

> This would make /usr easy to snapshot, easy to exclude from backups,
> easy to share between systems, easy to mark read-only (mount --bind -o
> ro /usr /usr) and various other fun possibilities.

I don't think /bin, /sbin, and /lib are seriously blocking anyone from doing
any of these things today.

Indeed, people have consistently argued in this thread that /usr shared over
NFS is not a useful thing to try to do these days, and there's nothing
about adding /bin, /sbin, and /lib to /usr that changes these arguments.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: