On 08/24/2015 09:57 PM, William Harrington wrote:
Have you considered using the unified-usr approach in LFS (as used by
Fedora 17+)? See:
* http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge
* http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
If so, is there a wiki page (or similar) anywhere which discusses your
conclusions?
Thanks & Regards,
Simon
Hello Simon,
This has been of discussion in the past. Refer to the mailing list
archives for some background information:
http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2012-October/067268.html
Sincerely,
William Harrington
Thanks for the link. As it's already been discussed, I'll drop the topic.
It was just that one of the things that immediately struck me when
following the LFS instructions for the first time was the large number
of mv/ln commands that weren't necessary in my fairly common environment
- /usr being a plain directory on the rootfs. I presume this doesn't
affect BLFS so much as those packages will mostly go into /usr anyway.
And of course people using jhals won't notice at all.
Ken: just one note. A "unified usr" works fine with /usr on a separate
filesystem. An initrd is necessary, but AIUI in simple cases it can
consist of two files: busybox + a 4-line shellscript.
Bruce: AIUI, the main reason for moving /bin/* into /usr/bin rather than
/usr/bin/* into /bin is that /etc usually needs to be writable by root,
ie the filesystem on which /etc really resides must be mounted
readwrite. But for clustered systems it is very desirable for the system
binaries to be on a filesystem that is mounted read-only. The fedora
approach allows a single readwrite filesystem (rootfs) and a single
readonly filesystem (/usr) which contains all binaries and their
corresponding libs.
Just a thought: maybe there is some interest in having "unified usr" in
the lfs-systemd book, but not in the lfs-sysv one? There is no relation
at all between systemd and "unified usr" except that they both
originated at RedHat, but those with an interest in systemd possibly are
more interested in a less-traditional filesystem layout too.
Anyway, would it be ok if I send in a patch for the LFS book adding a
single paragraph just mentioning that "unified usr" is a possible
approach, and that the mv/ln instructions from the LFS book can be left
out in that case (with initrd from BLFS needed if /usr is a separate
partition)? Maybe section 6.5 ("creating directories") would be appropriate?
Regards,
Simon
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
