| 1 |
Richard Yao posted on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 00:15:58 -0400 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
>> On Apr 4, 2016, at 9:19 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> All, |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I thought that since the usr merge is coming up again, and since I lost |
| 9 |
>> track of the message where it was brought up, I would open a new thread |
| 10 |
>> to discuss it. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> When it came up before, some were saying that the /usr merge violates |
| 13 |
>> the fhs. I don't remember the specifics of what the claim was at the |
| 14 |
>> time, (I'm sure someone will point it out if it is still a concern). |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Here are the violations: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/ |
| 19 |
fhs-3.0.html#binEssentialUserCommandBinaries |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/ |
| 22 |
fhs-3.0.html#sbinSystemBinaries |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/ |
| 25 |
fhs-3.0.html#libEssentialSharedLibrariesAndKern |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
(Those links are wrapped and I'm not bothering to jump thru the hoops to |
| 28 |
unwrap them, since readers can either unwrap them manually or refer to |
| 29 |
the parent post I'm quoting for the unwrapped versions.) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
If those are the "violations", then putting everything in /usr and making |
| 32 |
the /bin and /sbin locations symlinks isn't going to be a problem, since |
| 33 |
/bin and /sbin are specifically allowed to contain symlinks to the |
| 34 |
executables, instead of the executables themselves, and if the dirs |
| 35 |
themselves are symlinks to the locations in /usr with the files, that |
| 36 |
fulfills that requirement. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
And the requirement for /lib is rather vague, saying only that it |
| 39 |
contains the libs linked by the executables in /bin and /sbin. So once / |
| 40 |
bin and /sbin are symlinks to the dirs with the executables, /lib (or the |
| 41 |
arch-specific alternative libdirs) can be a symlink as well. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Tho I must say doing the reverse, making either /usr itself or /usr/bin |
| 44 |
and /usr/sbin symlinks to the root dirs, as I did here, actually makes |
| 45 |
more sense and bends the rules less. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Basically, what the FHS says, at least in the 3.0 version you linked, is |
| 48 |
that the executables must be reachable via whatever specific path, but |
| 49 |
using symlinks to do it is fine. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Which means the merge is allowed, as long as symlinks allow the |
| 52 |
executables to be reached by their specifically defined paths. And I'm |
| 53 |
not aware of anyone seriously proposing that said symlinks be omitted, |
| 54 |
so... |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 58 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 59 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives