Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people > think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no > semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc?
I don't see a semantic difference between /bin and /usr/bin (or /lib and /usr/lib). IMHO, the only reason for /bin and /lib is that some programs and libraries need to be available before is /usr is mounted. > Surely the reason who have these different directories is to make > logical distinctions, keeping different kinds of things in different > directories. If the argument for combining libexec and lib is that > "it does no harm", then I see why we should not put *everything* into > lib. It would make it simpler. That wasn't my argument. My argument is that I don't consider shared libraries and internal executables "different kinds of things." They are both binaries loaded and executed by a program. If there is a _technical_ necessity to separate them (like directory search times), this would be similar to /bin vs /usr/bin, which are also separate for technical, but not semantic reasons. Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
