Simon Kitching wrote:
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.
Interesting, but /etc/ should only need to be writable when changing
configuration or adding a package (which adds configuration).
Also, it goes to the philosophy used by most distros that one size fits
all. In other words because 0.01% of systems are clustered, lets make
it that way for the other 99.99% of users.
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?
The idea behind LFS is to minimize the options to facilitate learning,
although a knowledgeable user can change anything. What we have works.
There is not a need to change the book. What would be more
appropriate, IMO, would be a hint "Customizing LFS" where issues like
multilib, merging /bin, removing .la files, etc would be discussed.
-- Bruce
--
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
