DJ Lucas wrote:
In section 6.5.1, ran across these while digging intothe merged /usr for
systemd.
> The FHS also stipulates the existence
of|/usr/local/games|and|/usr/share/games|.
This is not entirely true. /usr/share/games is listed as optional now
(though it might be required for games in BLFS).
http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs.html#specificOptions15
Add a comma after "/usr/local/games" and append "if the corresponding
subsystem is installed." Maybe a link to BLFS if it is required, or just
exclude it?
Additionally...
>The FHS is not precise as to the structure of
the|/usr/local/share|subdirectory,
so we create only the directories that are needed.
Actually, it now says specifically that it should be the same as /usr/share.
http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs.html#requirements10
I can reword that paragraph. Created a ticket so I do not forget.
As to what I was actually looking for tonight, any particular reason that
the /usr merge has not been revisited inthe systemd book?
Lack of manpower mostly, but it hasn't come up in quite a while.
I still like the
idea of separate /usr in the main book, there are quite a few important
concepts to be learned b ykeeping them separate. I believe (IIRC) it was
omitted originally due to FHS 2.3. After review, I am merging locally. I
figured I'd bring it up here too, in case there is any interest in
revisiting it.
Looking at my system, there are 107 executables in /bin and 2244 in
/usr/bin (225 in /sbin and 232 in /usr/sbin). I agree that we should keep
the split in the main book, but perhaps a page should be added similar to
the Package Management page. Removing the split should be simple enough.
It's just creating a few (3 IIRC) symlinks instead of directories and
removing some commands where we move files or libraries later on.
Note that there are some packages in BLFS that would also be affected (e.g
lvm, wpa_supplicant, iptables, etc).
Looking at
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/ I
see specifically:
> Note that this page discusses a topic that is actually independent of
systemd.
systemd supports both systems with split and with merged /usr, and the
/usr
merge also makes sense for systemd-less systems. That said we want to
encourage
distributions adopting systemd to also adopt the /usr merge.
I recall some horror stories in the past, but have zero evidence of that.
My rationale is simply that the systemd developers "encourage" it, I know
first hand that it's easier, and the FHS does specifically allow this
(without actually recommending it) now:
I've been helping lately with an unrelated project that uses, for now,
Debian 8.1. That uses systemd. For regular users that install packages
with apt-get, the systemd use is pretty transparent, even if it is useless
on a LAMP server.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
