Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 14:41:06
Message-Id: 57067172.49cbca0a.693b1.ffff9909@mx.google.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge by Alexis Ballier
1 On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:12:13AM +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote:
2 > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 11:36:09 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote:
3 > > As for those benefits, they do little for {/usr,}/sbin vs
4 > > {/usr,}/bin, which is where the incompatibilities tend to live.
5 > > I encountered one of these in powertop the other day (patch
6 > > pending). The benefits of being able to access things from both
7 > > places are somewhat exaggerated given that compatibility among
8 > > systems has long required searching $PATH and likely always
9 > > will.
10 >
11 > PATH is a shell thing; some libc functions like execvp duplicate this
12 > functionality but that's all; you dont have PATH in shebangs nor in execv.
13 >
14 > >> Note, we are not
15 > >> talking about squashing /usr out of the equasion, but merging /bin,
16 > >> /sbin and /lib* into their counterparts in /usr and creating symlinks in
17 > >> the root directory pointing to the counterparts in /usr.
18 > >
19 > > While one guy did the reverse (and the reverse ought to be okay
20 > > for those that want to do that), no one appears to think that
21 > > adopting the reverse is what is being suggested. Having this
22 > > sort of clarity on whether forcing this on everyone via
23 > > baselayout update, just providing the option for those who want
24 > > it or some combination of the two (e.g. a long transition period
25 > > in which both are supported) is being discussed would be nice
26 > > though. This is not a Boolean decision.
27 >
28 > I've been under the impression since the beginning of the thread that it is
29 > what is being proposed: make it possible but support both. We can't force
30 > usr-merge without battle testing the migration process anyway, which means
31 > there needs to be such a long transition period.
32
33 I do agree that we need a testing period to iron out the migration
34 process. Like I said, I'm not quite comfortable even with running it
35 here because I don't know if it will break my system, and once you do
36 the migration, the only way to undo it is to wipe and re-install. I have
37 thought about a way to roll back, but I don't see that as very feesable,
38 so once you migrate to a /usr merged setup, there is no way to undo it.
39
40 Also, the usr merge affects linux only; we aren't talking about
41 messing with *bsd.
42
43 After the testing period is over, I'm confused about why we should
44 support both layouts. With separate usr without initramfs gone, the usr
45 merge is transparent to end users because of the symbolic links in /, so
46 there should be no reason to keep supporting both layouts once we are
47 satisfied with the migration process.
48
49 William

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: usr merge Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>