On 07/04/17 06:34 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
It's not really about grub, but about the fact that many of the utils needed to bring the system up to running order were removed from root and placed in /usr/bin and /usr/lib64, with broken symlinks left in /bin pointing to /usr/bin (which of course may not be mounted yet, as you have discovered). Even if you put the programs on root that you need to boot with, you'll find many of the system-startup libraries were also moved out of /lib64 into /usr/lib64
I must admit I always wondered why it was that way round. So we have /bin/<file> =>symlink=> /usr/bin/<file> why was it not done the other way round /usr/bin/<file> =>symlink=> /bin/<file> The only thing I can think of is that it was done to save space on the root FS. Which is kinda dumb because then this in turn necessitated having /usr/{bin.lib,lib64} on the root FS as well by having all of /usr on the ROOT FS in order to boot, as Linda points out. There are times, well OK, most of the time, that Linda's setup seems wacky to me, but this seems a bit wacky as well. If its all going to be one FS why have symlinks? Symlinks are a cross-FS mechanism. The only way that this makes sense is if /usr is not part of the ROOTFS. Linda has a reasoned and reasonable cause for the weird way she has her system set up. This is weird for no reason that I can see. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org