| 1 |
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> As I'm getting into this thread, I'm looking at debian, fedora and I'll |
| 4 |
> add openSUSE. I just don't get why a usr merge is as good as that |
| 5 |
> fedora page says. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Keep in mind Fedora's purposes here: |
| 9 |
1. It is a feeder where experimental technologies are previewed/developed. |
| 10 |
2. It is feeding into RHEL, which is targeted at |
| 11 |
infrequently-updating users who run in a release-based atmosphere. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The purpose of a /usr merge is to get all the stateless stuff into one place. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Some of the ultimate goals include: |
| 16 |
1. A read-only /usr |
| 17 |
2. Having /usr signature-verified at boot |
| 18 |
3. Having everything that runs signature-checked before it is run |
| 19 |
4. Having /usr shared across many containers/etc. |
| 20 |
5. Stateless systems - boot with a /usr and it creates the rest |
| 21 |
dynamically, and they're lost when the container is shut down. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Any of these COULD be implemented on Gentoo, though whether it will |
| 24 |
happen is questionable. Some of these like #5 would require more |
| 25 |
invasive changes to how we do things. However, the principle of |
| 26 |
having everything that is static in one place does make sense. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Put it this way, if you were designing a new OS from scratch today, |
| 29 |
would it make more sense to put all the distro-supplied |
| 30 |
binaries/libraries under a single path off the root, or off of many |
| 31 |
paths from the root? The main driver for having a split /usr is |
| 32 |
legacy, IMO. Apparently even the unix authors said that they |
| 33 |
originally did it only because of the size of one of their disks and |
| 34 |
they wanted root to be a secondary bootloader. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Rich |
Archives