On 12/25/2016 10:27 PM, L.A. Walsh wrote:
Wheras having one root file system with /usr make sense as to many libraries and dynamicallly loaded files are located below /usr
No it doesn't. Moving them to /bin, /lib and symlinking the entries in /usr/bin and /usr/lib would have achieved the same end. cf what Linda sys.
--- And below /usr/share -- a 3rd filesystem on some systems when /usr/share grew too big to fit on /usr partition.
And the original idea of "/usr/share" at USG, decades ago, was that it *would* be shared via NFS. One copy on the server. So there shouldn't be anything there essential to booting. So what binaries *are* under /usr/share ? I run find for any '.so' files under /usr/share and come up with nothing. Executables? Well lots of scripts. Lots of XML and other config files and templates that applications use. Yes you _could_ think of the icons needed by an GUI and the various images that OpenOffice Impress uses as a 'library'. But these are applications; they are not needed for booting. They can wait.
(e.g. libraries used for nfs4 and also dynamicallly loaded files of the glibc),
... are not under /usr/share OK. Look at it this way If all the necessary binaries are in /bin and /lib then there's no need to have /usr available in order to boot. If there are applications that have some executable in /usr/bin hard coded with that path rather than using the search or use fexecve() or execlp(), which searches using PATH rather than hard coding an absolute path and using execl(). Its like using DNS rather than hard coding an IP address. Or yes, have the names in /usr/bin but they are symlinks to /bin. As Linda says
The dependent libs in /usr can easily be moved to /lib{,64}. I don't understand, if they wanted to have them together, they didn't move files from /usr/bin => /bin and put symlinks in /usr (same for /lib, /sbin, /lib64...etc).
This isn't crazy. What I find odd is that its the other way round! Do a ls -l on /bin. Look at all the stuff that's symlinked to /usr/bin. What's the rational here? Is it that yes, the binaries needed for booting are in /bin and all these symlinks are are for things that are *not* needed for booting? Well that makes sense. But look to see what they are!
That would have been *safe* and accomplished the merge -- but no one in the /usr-merge camp could answer that question. The inability to technically justify the decision made me feel like some other reason was being hidden. That made me more than a little uncomfortable.
Well, yes, there is that.
there is no need to enforce the depopulation of the system basic paths /bin and /sbin
-- For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itchingears want to hear. -- II Timothy 4:3 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org