Re: File Systems.
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Erik Troan wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2000, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> > We agree on that: /usr is correct for packages that come with the
> > operating system. I would like to hear from you (or from the LSB
> > actually) *what* is considered to belong to the operating system. So,
> > what parts of Redhat (Caldera, Debian, Mandrake, SuSE, ...) belong to
> > the "operating system" and what parts are distributed 3rd party
> > software? Again: Is Netscape part of the OS?
> Whatever comes with any of them.
> I don't see any need for the contents of /usr/bin to be idential between
> LSB systems. I see a strong need for a common intersection across all
> distributions, and that intersection (or perhaps some subset of it) should
> be the LSB.
> Is your goal really to ensure "ls -lR /usr" is identical on all LSB systems?
> If so, why?
I see one reason: It is maybe easier to know what is belonging to what.
Personally I think that putting every executable in /usr/bin is bad
because its hard know what is user for what.
Example: The package super-database contains 6 binary executables used to
mantail the super-database. The operator tries to find out which
executables it is and does ls /usr/bin and get a list of 1417 files. How
easy is it to find out which?