Re: support for merged /usr in Debian
Craig Small <csmall@debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 03:55:51PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> What is causing all the heat is the suggestion that support might be
>> withdrawn for currently working configurations which _do_ have a /usr
>> vs / distinction, or which do mount /usr using / rather than
>> initramfs, or some such.
> Which actually was never proposed. There were some "what if" type
> posts, but noone was mandating a merged /usr anywhere.
What is the advantage of having a optional-merged-/usr?
>From what I understand the main argument for having merged-/usr was to
reduce maintenance overhead of having to decide between /bin and
/usr/bin or more importantly /lib and /usr/lib and moving things between
both locations. With an optional-merged-/usr, one still has the
overhead, i.e. no advantages over state quo I can see?
As a step towards merged-/usr (only) it might sense to have such an
optional-merged-/usr to start identifying issues, but what is the point
if we keep it optional? It just makes it less likely that people will
find issues with split-/usr (i.e. applications using /usr/bin/foo
instead of /bin/foo in some places).
Ansgar
Reply to: