Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org writes:
Hi!
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 13:43:19 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Roger Leigh wrote:
I think an important point to consider is that /usr would not
disappear. It could be replaced by a symlink for new installs.
This would permit older installs to
Hi!
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 13:43:19 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Roger Leigh wrote:
I think an important point to consider is that /usr would not
disappear. It could be replaced by a symlink for new installs.
This would permit older installs to continue to use /usr, but
the files would end up
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Zachary Harris zacharyhar...@hotmail.com writes:
My understanding of the FHS would be that if a library is a dependency
of a binary in /bin or /sbin, then such library belongs in /lib, not
/usr/lib. (If for some reason the library is also desired in
Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net writes:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:53:24PM -0500, Zachary Harris wrote:
I could be wrong, but my (admittedly stereotyped) impression of the
standard use cases is that if you've got someone who DOES want to mount
/usr separately from / (e.g. over NFS or
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 06:19:54PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 15, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
You keep repeating arguments in favour of moving /{bin,sbin,lib}/ to
/usr/ :-)
Well, I think I still need persuading that this is the right direction
to move the files. I
On Dec 16, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
Please correct my confusion if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure I can see
why it wouldn't be possible to snapshot the rootfs whichever way we
migrate files. Both / and /usr would need to be snapshotted as a whole
in order to do proper rollbacks
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:43:38PM +0100, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
[..]
The same argument applies to encryption. / and /usr both contain a
selection of programs, libraries etc. If you're encrypting one, why
would you not encrypt all of it?
Speed.
On Dec 15, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
That is to say, /usr is a split of /convenience/. The real solution
would be to have /etc as a separately-mounted encrypted filesystem.
So really, keeping /usr separate is a different issue, IMHO. This
isn't a reason to keep the /usr split,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 01:57:20PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 15, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
That is to say, /usr is a split of /convenience/. The real solution
would be to have /etc as a separately-mounted encrypted filesystem.
So really, keeping /usr separate is a
Ok, ok, ok, I think I may have got it. Some of your comments helped
get me on the proper track of distro-oriented thinking where different
systems are picking and choosing a different subset of available
packages, but those packages have predefined locations where they have
to put things. It has
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 01:29:18PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Well, I think I still need persuading that this is the right direction
to move the files. I still think that moving /usr to / is a better
strategy
I think we would need a very, very good reason to migrate away from /usr.
Fedora
On Dec 15, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
You keep repeating arguments in favour of moving /{bin,sbin,lib}/ to
/usr/ :-)
Well, I think I still need persuading that this is the right direction
to move the files. I still think that moving /usr to / is a better
strategy, albeit
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 07:17:53PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 01:29:18PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Well, I think I still need persuading that this is the right direction
to move the files. I still think that moving /usr to / is a better
strategy
I think we would
Roger Leigh wrote:
I think an important point to consider is that /usr would not
disappear. It could be replaced by a symlink for new installs.
This would permit older installs to continue to use /usr, but
the files would end up on / for new installs. So no changes
to --prefix would be
On 12/15/2011 09:29 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
Well, I think I still need persuading that this is the right direction
to move the files. I still think that moving /usr to / is a better
strategy, albeit introducing some problems with users who would need
to resize the rootfs (but this has always
On 12/16/2011 01:24 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
Hi Riku,
I think an important point to consider is that /usr would not
disappear. It could be replaced by a symlink for new installs.
This would permit older installs to continue to use /usr, but
the files would end up on / for new installs. So no
Le vendredi 16 décembre 2011 à 03:35 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
Oh, and when I'm at it, how do you implement /usr as read only,
(over nfs for example)? This is a quite common setup in large
organization / universities.
No, it is not. With a packaging system it is not suitable to have a
Thomas Goirand tho...@goirand.fr writes:
Oh, and when I'm at it, how do you implement /usr as read only,
(over nfs for example)? This is a quite common setup in large
organization / universities.
I really don't believe this is true any more. We used to do stuff like
this and stopped doing it
On 15.12.2011 20:27, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Also, I really fail to see how this would be an improvement for our users.
It's just an argument for making our lives of lazy library maintainer
more easy.
The question is, if moving files around is a good way to spend
maintainers time. I think not.
Hi there!
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:19:54 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 15, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
You keep repeating arguments in favour of moving /{bin,sbin,lib}/ to
/usr/ :-)
Well, I think I still need persuading that this is the right direction
to move the files. I
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 03:35:55AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 12/16/2011 01:24 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
Hi Riku,
I think an important point to consider is that /usr would not
disappear. It could be replaced by a symlink for new installs.
This would permit older installs to continue
Russ Allbery writes (Re: Bug#652011: general: Repeated pattern of FHS
violation: Dependencies of /sbin and /bin, belong in /lib):
I don't know if it's worth the effort to unify /bin and /usr/bin or the
other similar things that have been discussed from time to time,
The situation we have,
Wow, if this sort of bug report is re-evoking questions on the whole
relevance of the historical FHS to modern distros, it does seem that
some real soul searching is in order on the part of the community as
far as the future of where people see Debian/GNU/Linux headed. Begin
with the end in
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:53:24PM -0500, Zachary Harris wrote:
Throwing my own two cents in: as far as Debian itself goes, I think
this distro ('stable', in particular) has a reputation of being a solid,
stable, rock of confidence that others can build off of and deviate
from. The center
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
[..]
The same argument applies to encryption. / and /usr both contain a
selection of programs, libraries etc. If you're encrypting one, why
would you not encrypt all of it?
Speed.
On one of my relatively low-power portable systems, I have everything
On 14.12.2011 22:43, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
So I'd say preferably not move /bin and /lib to /usr; but I'd say
absolutely definitely not move /usr/bin and /usr/lib to /.
(Well, in the latter case: unless you make sure that /bin and /lib are
actually mountable separately. But that would really
On 14.12.2011 06:00, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm increasingly convinced by the recent discussion on debian-devel that
doing all the (rather substantial) work required to keep this separation
working is a waste of our collective time. We're not doing a very good
job at it anyway, chasing all the
On 12/14/2011 04:43 PM, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
[..]
The same argument applies to encryption. / and /usr both contain a
selection of programs, libraries etc. If you're encrypting one, why
would you not encrypt all of it?
Speed.
On one of my
Package: general
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 10.1.1
My understanding of the FHS would be that if a library is a dependency of a
binary in /bin or /sbin, then such library belongs in /lib, not
/usr/lib. (If
for some reason the library is also desired in /usr/lib then a sym link from
Zachary Harris zacharyhar...@hotmail.com writes:
My understanding of the FHS would be that if a library is a dependency
of a binary in /bin or /sbin, then such library belongs in /lib, not
/usr/lib. (If for some reason the library is also desired in /usr/lib
then a sym link from /lib to
30 matches
Mail list logo
