1 |
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:08:14PM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: |
2 |
> On 10/15/2019 13:34, David Seifert wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:04 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
4 |
> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:02 PM Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> |
5 |
> >> wrote: |
6 |
> >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert <soap@g.o> |
7 |
> >>> wrote: |
8 |
> >>>> On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
9 |
> >>>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <soap@g.o> |
10 |
> >>>>> wrote: |
11 |
> >>>>>> On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: |
12 |
> >>>>>>> On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs |
13 |
> >>>>>>> wrote: |
14 |
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny |
15 |
> >>>>>>>> wrote: |
16 |
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: |
17 |
> >>>>>>>>>> * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they |
18 |
> >>>>>>>>>> |
19 |
> >>>>>>>>>> have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving |
20 |
> >>>>>>>>>> users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, |
21 |
> >>>>>>>>>> Gentoo follows suit. |
22 |
> >>>>>>>>> |
23 |
> >>>>>>>>> What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with |
24 |
> >>>>>>>>> /usr/sbin |
25 |
> >>>>>>>>> and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P |
26 |
> >>>>>>>> |
27 |
> >>>>>>>> I also don't see the need for something like this. The |
28 |
> >>>>>>>> idea of |
29 |
> >>>>>>>> the |
30 |
> >>>>>>>> /usr |
31 |
> >>>>>>>> merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and |
32 |
> >>>>>>>> there |
33 |
> >>>>>>>> really |
34 |
> >>>>>>>> is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. |
35 |
> >>>>>>> |
36 |
> >>>>>>> Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means |
37 |
> >>>>>>> that |
38 |
> >>>>>>> /bin, |
39 |
> >>>>>>> /sbin, / |
40 |
> >>>>>>> usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? |
41 |
> >>>>>>> |
42 |
> >>>>>>> If that is not the case, then I agree that users should |
43 |
> >>>>>>> have the |
44 |
> >>>>>>> possibility |
45 |
> >>>>>>> to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be |
46 |
> >>>>>>> supported. |
47 |
> >>>>>>> |
48 |
> >>>>>>> --Dennis |
49 |
> >>>>>> |
50 |
> >>>>>> I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the |
51 |
> >>>>>> complete 2- |
52 |
> >>>>>> level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is |
53 |
> >>>>>> obsolete. |
54 |
> >>>>> |
55 |
> >>>>> That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE |
56 |
> >>>>> flag. |
57 |
> >>>>> |
58 |
> >>>>> For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links |
59 |
> >>>>> unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this |
60 |
> >>>>> is not |
61 |
> >>>>> possible? |
62 |
> >>>>> |
63 |
> >>>> |
64 |
> >>>> William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the |
65 |
> >>>> complete |
66 |
> >>>> Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO). |
67 |
> >>> |
68 |
> >>> William's opinion is not the only one that matters. |
69 |
> >> |
70 |
> >> Sorry, I guess you are referring to the behavior baselayout? That |
71 |
> >> doesn't necessarily align with the global usage. |
72 |
> >> |
73 |
> > |
74 |
> > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/baselayout.git/tree/Makefile#n93 |
75 |
> > |
76 |
> > Clearly the usr-merge in baselayout intends to merge all these 4 |
77 |
> > directories. There is currently no option to merge /usr and / but keep |
78 |
> > /bin and /sbin separate, so the most parsimonious solution here is to |
79 |
> > assume that usr-merge semantics in Gentoo is about merging all 4 |
80 |
> > directories. |
81 |
> |
82 |
> What is the source or origin point of the desire to merge /sbin into /bin? |
83 |
> I know Fedora/RedHat championed the /usr/[s]bin into /[s]bin bit, but this |
84 |
> is the first I've heard of trying to put all executables in one spot. I |
85 |
> have my doubts about such an idea, but want to see what the rationale is |
86 |
> this time before writing the idea off to the funny farm. |
87 |
> |
88 |
> My understanding for the separation was system binaries that only the |
89 |
> superuser needs to touch go into /sbin and everything else into /bin. This |
90 |
> allowed for unpriv user PATHs to exclude /sbin (and in times antiquity, also |
91 |
> exclude /usr/sbin). |
92 |
|
93 |
Back in the day, the s in /sbin and /usr/sbin meant static, not super |
94 |
user. All binaries in those directories were statically linked. |
95 |
|
96 |
https://www.osnews.com/story/25556/understanding-the-bin-sbin-usrbin-usrsbin-split/ |
97 |
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html |
98 |
|
99 |
The tl;dr is that the meaning of /sbin and /usr/sbin was lost years ago. |
100 |
|
101 |
William |