1 |
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann |
2 |
> <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> > with redhat's push to move everything into /usr - why not stop right there and |
4 |
> > move everything back into /? |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I originally thought this way, but they actually reviewed the |
7 |
> technical and historical merits for all the use cases and and found |
8 |
> /usr to be superior. Straight out of the freedesktop wiki: |
9 |
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge |
10 |
> |
11 |
> 0) If / and /usr are kept separate, programs in /usr can't be updated |
12 |
> independently of programs in /, because the libraries they depend on |
13 |
> might break compatibility. If the binaries and libraries were *all* in |
14 |
> /usr, then the entire system's binaries would always be consistent |
15 |
> regardless of where /usr were sourced from (config files in /etc, |
16 |
> however, would still break). |
17 |
|
18 |
Complete rubbish. If something in / needs something it should be in / |
19 |
if something is in / that isn't critical it shouldn't be there and |
20 |
won't matter. In all other cases everything exists. If you want some |
21 |
special feature that adds complexity to your early boot up stage |
22 |
or single user then that should be an optional package that installs |
23 |
into /. Similar to ssh enabled grub, it's optional. |
24 |
|
25 |
> 2) If /usr were separated from /, then /usr could be mounted |
26 |
> read-only, with / being mounted "normally". Which makes sense, as / |
27 |
> does have bits that are meant to be read-write. |
28 |
|
29 |
It certainly does not. There are packages that fix dhcp. I haven't ever |
30 |
setup a system that needed to do that. Updates get temporary |
31 |
controlled access. |
32 |
|
33 |
> 3) Most software packagers write their binaries to a PREFIX defaulting |
34 |
> to /usr/local, or /usr, as opposed to /. Determining which ones belong |
35 |
> in / or /usr can sometimes be dependent on the distro and/or sysad. |
36 |
> But since more of them default to /usr, if everything were in /usr |
37 |
> it'd be a saner default. |
38 |
> |
39 |
|
40 |
A concensus would be good. A right consensus is more likely to get a |
41 |
consensus. This has no bearing on the matters at hand. |
42 |
|
43 |
> (0) basically says that keeping them separate only works as intended |
44 |
> if the both the sysad and the distro upstream work together for their |
45 |
> shared /usr mount. In many cases, however, sysads have to do a lot of |
46 |
> working around and careful planning to get /usr mounted remotely. |
47 |
> (1), (2), and (3) provide advantages to mounting the binaries and |
48 |
> libraries separately from the / filesystem, which mounting them as |
49 |
> part of / does not provide. |
50 |
> |
51 |
|
52 |
Rubbish you can mount the whole of / or /usr. If all you have is /usr |
53 |
then if anything all you can mount is / but in fact you can mount any |
54 |
folder anywhere due to unix-like systems being ace. |
55 |
|
56 |
I wonder what percentage of Linux users believe you should have |
57 |
one partition for everything due to easier installs. I know the number |
58 |
will be increasing every day. |
59 |
|
60 |
-- |
61 |
_______________________________________________________________________ |
62 |
|
63 |
'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work |
64 |
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a |
65 |
universal interface' |
66 |
|
67 |
(Doug McIlroy) |
68 |
_______________________________________________________________________ |