On 07/05/13 17:17, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 04:56:04PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> If we do this, I'd prefer to make /usr a symlink to / on new installs
>
> I've always thought that myself, but it seems most folks who are pro
> merge tend to propose going the other way.
After "/usr unification", the files in /usr seem to have more in common
with each other than they do with the files in other top-level
directories. Compare "/usr unification":
/etc semi-static configuration
/home static/dynamic user data
/run transient system data
/srv static/dynamic service data
/tmp transient user/service data
/usr static package-manager-owned executables/libs/data
/usr/local static sysadmin-owned executables/libs/data
/var dynamic data
with what you might call "/ unification":
/bin static package-manager-owned executables
/etc semi-static configuration
/home static/dynamic user data
/lib static package-manager-owned libraries
/lib64 static package-manager-owned libraries (on non-Debian)
/local static sysadmin-owned executables/libs/data
/run transient system data
/sbin static package-manager-owned executables
/share static package-manager-owned data
/srv static/dynamic user data
/tmp transient user data
/var dynamic data
Also, /local and /share have not previously existed at the top level
(except on Hurd, which I think attempted "/ unification" at one point),
but would be created by "/ unification". That's only cosmetic, of course.
S
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5189302f.4000...@debian.org
