Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd Nov 2016 23:06 UTC
Debian and its clones

From the debian-devel mailing list:

debootstrap in unstable can now install with merged-/usr, that is with /bin, /sbin, /lib* being symlinks to their counterpart in /usr.

LWN.net published an article in January 2016 going into this then-proposed change.

Debian is the latest Linux distribution to consider moving away from the use of separate /bin, /sbin, and /lib directories for certain binaries. The original impetus for requiring these directories was due to space limitations in the first Unix implementations, developers favoring the change point out. But today, many of the services on a modern Linux system impose requirements of their own on the partition scheme - requirements that make life far simpler if /bin, /sbin, and /lib can be symbolic links to subdirectories within a unified /usr directory. Although some resistance was raised to the change, the project now seems to be on track to make "merged /usr" installations a supported option. And perhaps more importantly, the arguments favoring the merge suggest that many Debian developers would like to see that configuration eventually become the default.

Any steps to clean up Linux' FHS implementation - no matter how small - is cause for widespread celebration all across the land. Call it forth!

Thread beginning with comment 637511
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by p13.
by p13. on Wed 23rd Nov 2016 12:51 UTC
p13.
Member since:
2005-07-10

Some people won't be happy until everything gets stashed in a giant /System folder ala osx i guess ...

Personally, i think FHS itself is quite well structured, just almost always poorly implemented/adhered to.

I don't want to see it go.
I'd just like the current mess of people doing whatever the f*ck they want to go away.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by p13.
by laffer1 on Wed 23rd Nov 2016 15:04 in reply to "Comment by p13."
laffer1 Member since:
2007-11-09

I second that. People will stop using the symlinks as a performance bump and then we'll start seeing scripts hard coded for /usr/bin/sh and other crazy non portable things.

This is going to make portability of scripts even worse than it is now across Linux & BSD systems. Even Linux to Linux will be hard now. (not that it's great as it is)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by p13.
by p13. on Wed 23rd Nov 2016 15:23 in reply to "RE: Comment by p13."
p13. Member since:
2005-07-10

I second that. People will stop using the symlinks as a performance bump and then we'll start seeing scripts hard coded for /usr/bin/sh and other crazy non portable things.

This is going to make portability of scripts even worse than it is now across Linux & BSD systems. Even Linux to Linux will be hard now. (not that it's great as it is)


I use which or env

Aside from that, hope that $PATH is set correctly ;)

Edited 2016-11-23 15:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by p13.
by WorknMan on Wed 23rd Nov 2016 17:22 in reply to "Comment by p13."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Some people won't be happy until everything gets stashed in a giant /System folder ala osx i guess


/sbin, /bin, /lib are binary files, right? Seems to me that putting them in a /system folder would make a lot more sense than /usr. To me, 'usr' signifies 'user', which is where I'd guess all a user's personal files go. IRIC, I think the user's files go in /home, but that's not the point ...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by p13.
by p13. on Wed 23rd Nov 2016 17:31 in reply to "RE: Comment by p13."
p13. Member since:
2005-07-10

/lib contains shared objects. Shouldn't contain executable binaries.

/usr does in effect contain things belonging to the user. It contains binaries and objects that are non-critical tot the system, and support the applications/platform that the user(s) run on it.

/home does indeed contain the personal files, profile, etc of the system's users.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by p13.
by VistaUser on Wed 23rd Nov 2016 18:46 in reply to "RE: Comment by p13."
VistaUser Member since:
2008-03-08

Inhad the same misconception about usr.

It doesnt represent "user" but "Unix System Resources". (Maybe it needs a name change eventually.)

the Users folder equivalents in linux are "home/*"

Having all major distributions with a merged usr has benefits in documentation where documentation from one will more likely work on another distribution.

it also allows for simpler "resets" of a system where user configuration can be removed deleting everything but usr.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by p13.
by abraxas on Sat 26th Nov 2016 22:23 in reply to "RE: Comment by p13."
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

"Some people won't be happy until everything gets stashed in a giant /System folder ala osx i guess


/sbin, /bin, /lib are binary files, right? Seems to me that putting them in a /system folder would make a lot more sense than /usr. To me, 'usr' signifies 'user', which is where I'd guess all a user's personal files go. IRIC, I think the user's files go in /home, but that's not the point ...
"

The problem with that is USR stands for Universal System Resources.

Edited 2016-11-26 22:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2