Public SourceMage Discussion List

[flux <flux AT sourcemage.org>]

Sukneet Basuta (sukneet AT gmail.com) wrote [12.02.08 13:46]:
> Their argument to that is "This would make the separation between
> vendor-supplied OS resources and machine-specific even worse, thus
> making OS snapshots and network/container sharing of it much harder
> and non-atomic, and clutter the root file system with a multitude of
> new directories." I can't say I agree with them, minus the latter
> point, since it seems to me that a /usr merge would have the same
> affect. They also state that the SYS V and Solaris standard is to have
> /bin as a symlink to /usr/bin. Since when has it mattered what Solaris
> and SYS V do?

There would be no additional clutter of the root filesystem (unless you
actually remove /bin and /sbin, which isn't going to happen for quite a
while, if ever). The change they are proposing is to only move binaries.
If you move all the binaries from /usr/{s,}bin into /{s,}bin,
directories which already exist, you increase clutter by zero. Thus,
it's a completely invalid argument. Even if they went further and merged
*everything* from / into /usr (*and* deleted the then obsolete
directories), you aren't increasing/decreasing clutter, you're only
shifting it. Again, there is nothing in there arguments which presents
merging to /usr *over* merging to /. They only argue merge to /usr vs.
no merge at all. It's completely arbitrary.

> I have to admit that I do like that will simplify the filesystem. For
> Desktop users like me that have /usr on the same partition as /, there
> is not many advantages to having /bin and /usr/bin separate.

It will not simplify the filesystem. It will be an arbitrary change, and
whether that change is considered simpler depends on the eye of the
beholder. I don't view having a single over-populated directory as
necessarily simpler. I don't view it as more complex either, though. But
these are my views, and others will view it differently. That's exactly
my point though: filesystem layout is not a matter of "correctness",
it's a matter of 1) personal taste and 2) a particular application in a
particular environment, based on established procedures/practices. Note
that point 2 is actually dependent on point 1. As a desktop user, if you
want simple, just make a single huge partition and let the package
manager take care of what installs where. For "simple" uses, you never
need to know where a binary is -- just type the name, tab-complete, and
let $PATH find it for you. And that's the command-line; if you're in a
WM/DE, then you can just call programs via menus. Either way, you won't
actually see the path for simple usage.

-- 
Justin "flux_control" Boffemmyer
Cauldron wizard and general mage
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org

Attachment: pgp6BGcEA0JeI.pgp
Description: PGP signature