On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 15:29 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > If distros like RedHat were really looking for consistency, they > would use /bin, /lib, and /sbin, and remove them from /usr. What > they really are doing is trying to make things easier for themselves > by not being concerned where each package file is placed.
They *are* concerned where each file is placed - but it's not about consistency, as such. The purpose is actually to support /usr as a self -contained system, because this is useful for doing containers, something that's greatly in fashion these days. If you look at it from that point of view, the change makes a lot more sense. For the container, the root filesystem should only hold the bits that are unique to the container - which includes things like /etc and maybe /var, but it mostly definitely doesn't include things like glibc, bash, and all the other bits normally under /lib, /bin, and /sbin. By moving the contents of those directories under /usr, they get a single filesystem that needs to be mounted (read-only) into every container, instead of a hundred containers having a hundred copies of the basic installation. Incidentally, this is also the reason why systemd puts configuration defaults under /usr instead of /etc - so that the bits in /etc are *only* the bits that are specifically configured for a specific machine (or container). 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
