:: Re: [DNG] /usr to merge or not to m…
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Steve Litt
Date:  
To: dng
Subject: Re: [DNG] /usr to merge or not to merge... that is the question??
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:34:05 +0100
Irrwahn <irrwahn@???> wrote:


> I cast my vote in favor of making merged /usr the default.
>
> My reasoning behind this is as follows (disclaimer: rant mode =
> medium):
>
> The practice of storing system files in a secondary hierarchy below
> /usr was born out of disk space constraints on hardware that has been
> obsoleted many, many decades ago. It is and has always been an ill
> conceived kludge that somehow managed to cross the times and still be
> present on some Unix-like operating systems.
>
> The artificial separation of system files into the "essential" and
> "non-essential" categories has always been a vague and arbitrary one,
> and in the Debian case is botched since at least Wheezy, effectively
> rendering the endeavor of making /usr a mount point for a separate
> disk partition a nontrivial task (think initramfs).
>
> The fact that split /usr has been abused to craft pathologic setups
> like network mounted /usr volumes shared across multiple installations
> is a moot point. This practice is demonstrably a recipe for disaster
> when used for anything but fun experiments on non-critical toy
> installations or as a demonstration piece on how to /not/ design a
> reliable system.
>
> Split /usr is an abomination that should have been put to rest long
> ago, only to be referred to as quirky anecdote in some obscure
> footnote. Merging /usr back is a small step on the long way to
> restore the FSH to what it was meant to be.


Wait a minute. You and I are talking about two different things, so
perhaps I should ask what the "/usr merge" really is.

Urban, you seem to be against having both a /usr/bin and a /bin.
Personally, I don't care about that.

What *I'm* talking about is I want to continue having /sbin separate
from /bin and /usr/bin, because the /sbin varieties holds statically
compiled programs guaranteed to work at the earliest of boots, and in
the case of /sbin, guaranteed to be available as soon as / is mounted.

I want there to always exist a /sbin, where static executables become
available the microsecond / is mounted. /sbin should be there only for
statically compiled executables needed for early boot. As long as /sbin
contains everything needed to boot in all but the craziest situations,
I don't care what happens to /usr/sbin.

But the minute somebody combines /sbin with /usr/bin or /usr/sbin,
everything I said in my previous post becomes true.

SteveT

Steve Litt
November 2018 featured book: Manager's Guide to Technical
Troubleshooting Brand new, second edition
http://www.troubleshooters.com/mgr