1 |
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Sep 30, 2013 9:31 AM, "Daniel Campbell" <lists@××××××××.us> wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
> |
6 |
> --- le snip --- |
7 |
> |
8 |
>> If the proposed solution is all binaries and libraries in the same |
9 |
>> root/prefix directory, then why call it /usr? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> My question exactly. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Why install to /usr at all, leaving /bin and /sbin a practically empty |
14 |
> directory containing symlinks only? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> I mean, I have no quarrel with / and /usr separation, having had them in the |
17 |
> same partition for ages... but why not do it the other way around, i.e., put |
18 |
> everything in / and have /usr be a container for symlinks? |
19 |
> |
20 |
|
21 |
If the binaries and libraries are kept together, /usr can actually be made |
22 |
reliably sharable, independent of local settings in /etc. It can also be made |
23 |
properly readonly, or otherwise use different mount options than /. |
24 |
|
25 |
Most of the things in /usr have the same read-write characteristics. |
26 |
They're mostly chunks of 1-20mb in size that are read very often and |
27 |
written very rarely. You can pick a filesystem with options that |
28 |
optimized for that. They're also non-data, so the root of that tree |
29 |
has an entirely different backup priority than /etc or /home. |
30 |
|
31 |
And then there are directories in /usr that don't exist in /. Are you |
32 |
gonna link them too? So we have /share now? Or /src? |
33 |
|
34 |
Seems to me that it makes less mess to move / to /usr than vice versa. |
35 |
-- |
36 |
This email is: [ ] actionable [x] fyi [ ] social |
37 |
Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [x] no |
38 |
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none |