Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 08:53:26 +0000
> Sven Vermeulen <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 07:59:47PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
>> > The goal is to deprecate /bin, /lib, /sbin and /usr/sbin. My
>> > understanding is that they want to move software that is installed
>> > in /bin, /sbin and /usr/sbin to /usr/bin. Also, they want to move
>> > everything from /lib to /usr/lib.
>> I don't like this one bit. Things used to be simple with the "split"
>> between /bin and /usr/bin (and its related directories), this isn't
>> going to make it more simple.
> Simple? Should I start requesting additional packages moved into rootfs
> because I feel like needing them? Things can and will go more ugly,
> and I wouldn't be surprised if anytime soon people will start
> complaining because they ran out of space on their rootfs.
Well, it is conceptually quite simple: if it's needed in single-user mode to
get your system up and running again, it belongs in rootfs, and if it isn't,
then leave it in user-land.
The thing I don't understand is why it is necessary to move stuff from /bin
to /usr/bin. After all, if you're running the "approved" setup you don't
have a separate /usr so all the binaries are available from the get-go.
What does moving them enable that can't be done now?
Sure, if you have binaries in /bin that link to libraries in /usr/lib that
could be an issue, but only if you're running with a separate /usr and don't
have it mounted when udev starts. So again, not the "approved" setup, and
something you as an admin already have to deal with by making sure /usr is
mounted when udev starts (either via an initramfs, or by a tweak to udev
wrt GNU coreutils installing to /usr by default, that's so of every GNU
package, since they default to a prefix of /usr/local and it's up to a
distro (or the end-user) to configure them differently; in general the
package assumes it's an addition to the system, unless told otherwise.
(Additionally I'd say that binaries installed to /bin that require libraries
installed to /usr is a bug, but something that should be dealt with
separately. Though with the direction people seem to think is needed, I'm
not sure how much effort anyone will put into that.)
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)