| 1 |
On Sep 30, 2013 9:31 AM, "Daniel Campbell" <lists@××××××××.us> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
--- le snip --- |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> If the proposed solution is all binaries and libraries in the same |
| 7 |
> root/prefix directory, then why call it /usr? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
My question exactly. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Why install to /usr at all, leaving /bin and /sbin a practically empty |
| 12 |
directory containing symlinks only? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I mean, I have no quarrel with / and /usr separation, having had them in |
| 15 |
the same partition for ages... but why not do it the other way around, |
| 16 |
i.e., put everything in / and have /usr be a container for symlinks? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> It has little to do with |
| 19 |
> users if it's nothing but binaries, libraries, etc. In addition, would a |
| 20 |
> local directory still be under this, for user-compiled programs not |
| 21 |
> maintained by the PM? Or does that deserve a different top level |
| 22 |
directory? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Then there's /opt, whose purpose I'm still not sure of. This is |
| 25 |
> strengthening the idea that something new should be thought up and |
| 26 |
> drafted. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
IIRC, it was supposed to contain third-party binaries, i.e., things not |
| 29 |
available in a distro's package repo. Thus, when one's tired of a |
| 30 |
third-party binary package, he/she can just delete the relevant directory |
| 31 |
under /opt, because the third-party package might not be uninstallable |
| 32 |
using the distro's package management system (if any). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Of course, he/she might have to clean up the leftover crud in /etc, but |
| 35 |
those are usually small and can safely be ignored. Except perhaps startup |
| 36 |
initscripts. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> Not necessarily by us at Gentoo, but *somebody*. If I was crazy |
| 39 |
> and knowledgeable enough I'd volunteer myself. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Rgds, |
| 43 |
-- |
Archives