Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On 10/16/2019 14:19, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 07:17:09PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 Oct 2019, William Hubbs wrote: >> >>> Back in the day, the s in /sbin and /usr/sbin meant static, not super >>> user. All binaries in those directories were statically linked. >> [snip] > > Please read the links I posted before --specifically the comments > from Rob. > > Also, there is this. > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3519952 > > Tl;dr the bin sbin separation is a historical separation that doesn't > make sense any longer. This is just your opinion. Why does it not make sense? Please back that up. Especially the "historical separation" bit. Why is is historical? Whom is the authority on that? Is this strictly a Gentoo thing? Is RedHat doing this? Is someone else? Etc... FWIW, my opinion is I //like// the separation of /sbin and /bin. In fact, I'm that old codger who //still// likes keeping /usr/bin and /usr/sbin separate (yes, on separate partitions). Maybe it's because I'm really poor at organizing (and staying organized), so dumping everything into one spot -- which is something I do at home WAY too much -- just strikes me as a bad idea. Binning stuff into different buckets offers SOME degree of organization. It also means 'ls -l /bin' is still somewhat readable on a system with a full desktop installed. -- Joshua Kinard Gentoo/MIPS ku...@gentoo.org rsa6144/5C63F4E3F5C6C943 2015-04-27 177C 1972 1FB8 F254 BAD0 3E72 5C63 F4E3 F5C6 C943 "The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." --Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2019, William Hubbs wrote: > Please read the links I posted before --specifically the comments > from Rob. You mean this? http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html It only says that "in 1974 [...] everything was statically linked", but not anything specific about /sbin there. I even believe that he got the part about /sbin historically wrong. There was no /sbin in early Unix versions (because "dangerous maintenance utilities" were in /etc). You can check this in https://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/ancient/ which shows that even in V7 Unix (1979) /sbin didn't exist yet. So certainly not in 1974 either. Ulrich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 07:17:09PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Oct 2019, William Hubbs wrote: > > > Back in the day, the s in /sbin and /usr/sbin meant static, not super > > user. All binaries in those directories were statically linked. > > Where have you found that statement? The "s" stands for "system", > not for "static". See for example [1]. > > Traditionally, these programs used to be in /etc (!), and were moved > to /sbin later. For example, documentation of V7 Unix [2] says that > "dangerous maintenance utilities" live in /etc (and doesn't mention > /sbin at all). > > Somewhat later, in 4.3BSD NET/2 these system binaries are in /sbin: > "system programs and administration utilities fundamental to both > single-user and multi-user environments" [3]. > > > [1] https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch03s16.html > [2] > https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=hier=0=0=Unix+Seventh+Edition=default=html > [3] > https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=hier=0=0=4.3BSD+NET%2F2=default=html Please read the links I posted before --specifically the comments from Rob. Also, there is this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3519952 Tl;dr the bin sbin separation is a historical separation that doesn't make sense any longer. William > < signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2019, William Hubbs wrote: > Back in the day, the s in /sbin and /usr/sbin meant static, not super > user. All binaries in those directories were statically linked. Where have you found that statement? The "s" stands for "system", not for "static". See for example [1]. Traditionally, these programs used to be in /etc (!), and were moved to /sbin later. For example, documentation of V7 Unix [2] says that "dangerous maintenance utilities" live in /etc (and doesn't mention /sbin at all). Somewhat later, in 4.3BSD NET/2 these system binaries are in /sbin: "system programs and administration utilities fundamental to both single-user and multi-user environments" [3]. [1] https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch03s16.html [2] https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=hier=0=0=Unix+Seventh+Edition=default=html [3] https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=hier=0=0=4.3BSD+NET%2F2=default=html < signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
Hi Jaco, On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:18:38AM +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote: > Hi, *snip* > For what it's worth. All of my systems are installed with a fixed-size > 512MB / with everything else (including /usr) on separate LVs. > > Whilst sbin vs bin is just a matter of what's available, to me it makes > sense to keep these split. To me it's always been logical to keep > administrative type (root) tools under sbin, and stuff that's generally > useful for users under bin. As I said in my previous message, sbin and /usr/sbin are supposed to have statically linked binaries in them, "s" means static not superuser. > Keeping / and /usr split (or the ability to keep it split) is rather > crucial for me. It's for historic installations a matter of space > constraints on /. For new installations it's a matter of keeping / as > small as possible in order to have a smallish bootable system which can > be used for recovering the rest of the system, ideally without an initrd > (which also works to an extent). Having / and /usr on separate filesystems is not what split-usr is about. split-usr just means that /bin /lib* and /sbin are directories not symlinks. Splitting / and /usr to separate filesystems without an initramfs is not officially supported. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:08:14PM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 10/15/2019 13:34, David Seifert wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:04 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:02 PM Mike Gilbert > >> wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert > >>> wrote: > On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert > > wrote: > >> On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: > >>> On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs > >>> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny > wrote: > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: > >> * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they > >> > >> have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving > >> users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, > >> Gentoo follows suit. > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with > > /usr/sbin > > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The > idea of > the > /usr > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and > there > really > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. > >>> > >>> Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means > >>> that > >>> /bin, > >>> /sbin, / > >>> usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? > >>> > >>> If that is not the case, then I agree that users should > >>> have the > >>> possibility > >>> to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be > >>> supported. > >>> > >>> --Dennis > >> > >> I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the > >> complete 2- > >> level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is > >> obsolete. > > > > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE > > flag. > > > > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links > > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this > > is not > > possible? > > > > William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the > complete > Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO). > >>> > >>> William's opinion is not the only one that matters. > >> > >> Sorry, I guess you are referring to the behavior baselayout? That > >> doesn't necessarily align with the global usage. > >> > > > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/baselayout.git/tree/Makefile#n93 > > > > Clearly the usr-merge in baselayout intends to merge all these 4 > > directories. There is currently no option to merge /usr and / but keep > > /bin and /sbin separate, so the most parsimonious solution here is to > > assume that usr-merge semantics in Gentoo is about merging all 4 > > directories. > > What is the source or origin point of the desire to merge /sbin into /bin? > I know Fedora/RedHat championed the /usr/[s]bin into /[s]bin bit, but this > is the first I've heard of trying to put all executables in one spot. I > have my doubts about such an idea, but want to see what the rationale is > this time before writing the idea off to the funny farm. > > My understanding for the separation was system binaries that only the > superuser needs to touch go into /sbin and everything else into /bin. This > allowed for unpriv user PATHs to exclude /sbin (and in times antiquity, also > exclude /usr/sbin). Back in the day, the s in /sbin and /usr/sbin meant static, not super user. All binaries in those directories were statically linked. https://www.osnews.com/story/25556/understanding-the-bin-sbin-usrbin-usrsbin-split/ http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html The tl;dr is that the meaning of /sbin and /usr/sbin was lost years ago. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 12:03 +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote: > Hi, > > -- large trim -- > > > For what it's worth. All of my systems are installed with a fixed- > > > size > > > 512MB / with everything else (including /usr) on separate LVs. > > > > > > Whilst sbin vs bin is just a matter of what's available, to me it > > > makes > > > sense to keep these split. To me it's always been logical to keep > > > administrative type (root) tools under sbin, and stuff that's > > > generally > > > useful for users under bin. > > > > > > Keeping / and /usr split (or the ability to keep it split) is rather > > > crucial for me. It's for historic installations a matter of space > > > constraints on /. For new installations it's a matter of keeping / > > > as > > > small as possible in order to have a smallish bootable system which > > > can > > > be used for recovering the rest of the system, ideally without an > > > initrd > > > (which also works to an extent). > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > Jaco > > > > > For the umpteenth time time: nothing will change. You can keep your > > (albeit broken) separate / and /usr partitions. *NOTHING* will change > > for anyone. There are no plans to change the defaults. This is *MERELY* > > about giving people the chance to opt in to the /usr-merge. > Thanks for the confirmation. As long as it's an OPTION I'm happy. And > no, other than on my desktop machine a split /usr is working very well, > and even in that case a split off /lib/firmware actually caused me much, > much more problems (for i915 and amdgpu firmware) than a split /usr. > Unfortunately /lib/firmware grew over the years and so I had no choice > other than to split it off after the fact. > > That said, the idea of using / as a "recovery" filesystem in general is > > broken: > > https://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/ > > And no, this is not systemd breaking your system, or Lennart, it's > > distros and userlands not being careful to have things in / never > > depend on things in /usr. > > It's saved my butt more than once when the (extremely) limited tools in > the initrds on those same systems failed to do so. Mostly these cases > weren't Gentoo. Yes RHEL, I'm looking at you. Gentoo I generally > recover crazy faults without the use of system rescue CDs (probably > required it 10 times over 15 years). Can't say the same for those > distro's pushing for "recovery systems in initrd", and I'm running > probably 3x more Gentoo systems than all other distro's combined. > > The only stuff so far I really wished worked without /usr was editors > such as vim and/or nano (sed sufficed in those cases). > > Would contributing a script that's able to check which binaries in /bin > (and /sbin) depend on libs not also on / be useful here? Perhaps as a > QA check somehow? > I've been doing that for quite some time, and the usual answer was 'I don't care, use initramfs, but I WON'T move files correctly to /usr'. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
Hi, -- large trim -- >> For what it's worth. All of my systems are installed with a fixed- >> size >> 512MB / with everything else (including /usr) on separate LVs. >> >> Whilst sbin vs bin is just a matter of what's available, to me it >> makes >> sense to keep these split. To me it's always been logical to keep >> administrative type (root) tools under sbin, and stuff that's >> generally >> useful for users under bin. >> >> Keeping / and /usr split (or the ability to keep it split) is rather >> crucial for me. It's for historic installations a matter of space >> constraints on /. For new installations it's a matter of keeping / >> as >> small as possible in order to have a smallish bootable system which >> can >> be used for recovering the rest of the system, ideally without an >> initrd >> (which also works to an extent). >> >> Kind Regards, >> Jaco >> > For the umpteenth time time: nothing will change. You can keep your > (albeit broken) separate / and /usr partitions. *NOTHING* will change > for anyone. There are no plans to change the defaults. This is *MERELY* > about giving people the chance to opt in to the /usr-merge. Thanks for the confirmation. As long as it's an OPTION I'm happy. And no, other than on my desktop machine a split /usr is working very well, and even in that case a split off /lib/firmware actually caused me much, much more problems (for i915 and amdgpu firmware) than a split /usr. Unfortunately /lib/firmware grew over the years and so I had no choice other than to split it off after the fact. > > That said, the idea of using / as a "recovery" filesystem in general is > broken: > https://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/ > And no, this is not systemd breaking your system, or Lennart, it's > distros and userlands not being careful to have things in / never > depend on things in /usr. It's saved my butt more than once when the (extremely) limited tools in the initrds on those same systems failed to do so. Mostly these cases weren't Gentoo. Yes RHEL, I'm looking at you. Gentoo I generally recover crazy faults without the use of system rescue CDs (probably required it 10 times over 15 years). Can't say the same for those distro's pushing for "recovery systems in initrd", and I'm running probably 3x more Gentoo systems than all other distro's combined. The only stuff so far I really wished worked without /usr was editors such as vim and/or nano (sed sufficed in those cases). Would contributing a script that's able to check which binaries in /bin (and /sbin) depend on libs not also on / be useful here? Perhaps as a QA check somehow? And I get that that's a completely different rabbit hole ... 1. What about non-lib files, eg, /usr/share/zoneinfo? 2. Should such binaries be moved to /usr or should the libraries be moved to /? X. a gazillion things I haven't even started to think about. Kind Regards, Jaco > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 11:18 +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote: > Hi, > > On 2019/10/15 19:34, David Seifert wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:04 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:02 PM Mike Gilbert > > > > > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert < > > > > > > s...@gentoo.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: > > > > > > > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William > > > > > > > > Hubbs > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał > > > > > > > > > Górny > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, > > > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By > > > > > > > > > > > giving > > > > > > > > > > > users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, > > > > > > > > > > > Gentoo follows suit. > > > > > > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > /usr/sbin > > > > > > > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P > > > > > > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > idea of > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > /usr > > > > > > > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from > > > > > > > > > sbin. > > > > > > > > Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently > > > > > > > > means > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > /bin, > > > > > > > > /sbin, / > > > > > > > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should > > > > > > > > have the > > > > > > > > possibility > > > > > > > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be > > > > > > > > supported. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Dennis > > > > > > > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the > > > > > > > complete 2- > > > > > > > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > obsolete. > > > > > > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr > > > > > > USE > > > > > > flag. > > > > > > > > > > > > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links > > > > > > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where > > > > > > this > > > > > > is not > > > > > > possible? > > > > > > > > > > > William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the > > > > > complete > > > > > Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO). > > > > William's opinion is not the only one that matters. > > > Sorry, I guess you are referring to the behavior baselayout? That > > > doesn't necessarily align with the global usage. > > > > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/baselayout.git/tree/Makefile#n93 > > > > Clearly the usr-merge in baselayout intends to merge all these 4 > > directories. There is currently no option to merge /usr and / but > > keep > > /bin and /sbin separate, so the most parsimonious solution here is > > to > > assume that usr-merge semantics in Gentoo is about merging all 4 > > directories. > > > > > For what it's worth. All of my systems are installed with a fixed- > size > 512MB / with everything else (including /usr) on separate LVs. > > Whilst sbin vs bin is just a matter of what's available, to me it > makes > sense to keep these split. To me it's always been logical to keep > administrative type (root) tools under sbin, and stuff that's > generally > useful for users under bin. > > Keeping / and /usr split (or the ability to keep it split) is rather > crucial for me. It's for historic installations a matter of space > constraints on /. For new installations it's a matter of keeping / > as > small as possible in order to have a smallish bootable system which > can > be used for recovering the rest of the system, ideally without an > initrd > (which also works to an extent). > > Kind Regards, > Jaco > For the umpteenth time time: nothing will change. You can keep your (albeit broken) separate / and /usr partitions. *NOTHING* will change for anyone. There are no plans to change the defaults. This is *MERELY* about giving people the chance to opt in to the /usr-merge. That said, the idea of using / as a "recovery" filesystem in general is broken: https://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/ And no, this is not systemd breaking your system, or Lennart, it's distros and userlands not being careful to have things in / never depend on things in /usr.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
Hi, On 2019/10/15 19:34, David Seifert wrote: > On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:04 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:02 PM Mike Gilbert >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert >>> wrote: On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert > wrote: >> On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: >>> On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs >>> wrote: On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: >> * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they >> >> have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving >> users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, >> Gentoo follows suit. > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with > /usr/sbin > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of the /usr merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there really is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. >>> Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means >>> that >>> /bin, >>> /sbin, / >>> usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? >>> >>> If that is not the case, then I agree that users should >>> have the >>> possibility >>> to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be >>> supported. >>> >>> --Dennis >> I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the >> complete 2- >> level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is >> obsolete. > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE > flag. > > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this > is not > possible? > William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the complete Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO). >>> William's opinion is not the only one that matters. >> Sorry, I guess you are referring to the behavior baselayout? That >> doesn't necessarily align with the global usage. >> > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/baselayout.git/tree/Makefile#n93 > > Clearly the usr-merge in baselayout intends to merge all these 4 > directories. There is currently no option to merge /usr and / but keep > /bin and /sbin separate, so the most parsimonious solution here is to > assume that usr-merge semantics in Gentoo is about merging all 4 > directories. > > For what it's worth. All of my systems are installed with a fixed-size 512MB / with everything else (including /usr) on separate LVs. Whilst sbin vs bin is just a matter of what's available, to me it makes sense to keep these split. To me it's always been logical to keep administrative type (root) tools under sbin, and stuff that's generally useful for users under bin. Keeping / and /usr split (or the ability to keep it split) is rather crucial for me. It's for historic installations a matter of space constraints on /. For new installations it's a matter of keeping / as small as possible in order to have a smallish bootable system which can be used for recovering the rest of the system, ideally without an initrd (which also works to an extent). Kind Regards, Jaco
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On 10/15/2019 13:34, David Seifert wrote: > On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:04 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:02 PM Mike Gilbert >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert >>> wrote: On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert > wrote: >> On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: >>> On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs >>> wrote: On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: >> * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they >> >> have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving >> users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, >> Gentoo follows suit. > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with > /usr/sbin > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of the /usr merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there really is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. >>> >>> Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means >>> that >>> /bin, >>> /sbin, / >>> usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? >>> >>> If that is not the case, then I agree that users should >>> have the >>> possibility >>> to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be >>> supported. >>> >>> --Dennis >> >> I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the >> complete 2- >> level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is >> obsolete. > > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE > flag. > > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this > is not > possible? > William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the complete Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO). >>> >>> William's opinion is not the only one that matters. >> >> Sorry, I guess you are referring to the behavior baselayout? That >> doesn't necessarily align with the global usage. >> > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/baselayout.git/tree/Makefile#n93 > > Clearly the usr-merge in baselayout intends to merge all these 4 > directories. There is currently no option to merge /usr and / but keep > /bin and /sbin separate, so the most parsimonious solution here is to > assume that usr-merge semantics in Gentoo is about merging all 4 > directories. What is the source or origin point of the desire to merge /sbin into /bin? I know Fedora/RedHat championed the /usr/[s]bin into /[s]bin bit, but this is the first I've heard of trying to put all executables in one spot. I have my doubts about such an idea, but want to see what the rationale is this time before writing the idea off to the funny farm. My understanding for the separation was system binaries that only the superuser needs to touch go into /sbin and everything else into /bin. This allowed for unpriv user PATHs to exclude /sbin (and in times antiquity, also exclude /usr/sbin). -- Joshua Kinard Gentoo/MIPS ku...@gentoo.org rsa6144/5C63F4E3F5C6C943 2015-04-27 177C 1972 1FB8 F254 BAD0 3E72 5C63 F4E3 F5C6 C943 "The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." --Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:04 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:02 PM Mike Gilbert > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert > > wrote: > > > On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: > > > > > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: > > > > > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving > > > > > > > > > users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, > > > > > > > > > Gentoo follows suit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with > > > > > > > > /usr/sbin > > > > > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The > > > > > > > idea of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > /usr > > > > > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means > > > > > > that > > > > > > /bin, > > > > > > /sbin, / > > > > > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? > > > > > > > > > > > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should > > > > > > have the > > > > > > possibility > > > > > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be > > > > > > supported. > > > > > > > > > > > > --Dennis > > > > > > > > > > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the > > > > > complete 2- > > > > > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is > > > > > obsolete. > > > > > > > > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE > > > > flag. > > > > > > > > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links > > > > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this > > > > is not > > > > possible? > > > > > > > > > > William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the > > > complete > > > Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO). > > > > William's opinion is not the only one that matters. > > Sorry, I guess you are referring to the behavior baselayout? That > doesn't necessarily align with the global usage. > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/baselayout.git/tree/Makefile#n93 Clearly the usr-merge in baselayout intends to merge all these 4 directories. There is currently no option to merge /usr and / but keep /bin and /sbin separate, so the most parsimonious solution here is to assume that usr-merge semantics in Gentoo is about merging all 4 directories.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:02 PM Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert > > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: > > > > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: > > > > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving > > > > > > > > users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, > > > > > > > > Gentoo follows suit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with > > > > > > > /usr/sbin > > > > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P > > > > > > > > > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of > > > > > > the > > > > > > /usr > > > > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there > > > > > > really > > > > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. > > > > > > > > > > Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means that > > > > > /bin, > > > > > /sbin, / > > > > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? > > > > > > > > > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the > > > > > possibility > > > > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported. > > > > > > > > > > --Dennis > > > > > > > > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2- > > > > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is > > > > obsolete. > > > > > > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE flag. > > > > > > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links > > > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this is not > > > possible? > > > > > > > William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the complete > > Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO). > > William's opinion is not the only one that matters. Sorry, I guess you are referring to the behavior baselayout? That doesn't necessarily align with the global usage.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert wrote: > > On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert > > wrote: > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: > > > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: > > > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving > > > > > > > users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, > > > > > > > Gentoo follows suit. > > > > > > > > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with > > > > > > /usr/sbin > > > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P > > > > > > > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of > > > > > the > > > > > /usr > > > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there > > > > > really > > > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. > > > > > > > > Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means that > > > > /bin, > > > > /sbin, / > > > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? > > > > > > > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the > > > > possibility > > > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported. > > > > > > > > --Dennis > > > > > > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2- > > > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is > > > obsolete. > > > > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE flag. > > > > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links > > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this is not > > possible? > > > > William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the complete > Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO). William's opinion is not the only one that matters.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert > wrote: > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: > > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: > > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they > > > > > > > > > > > > have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving > > > > > > users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, > > > > > > Gentoo follows suit. > > > > > > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with > > > > > /usr/sbin > > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P > > > > > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of > > > > the > > > > /usr > > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there > > > > really > > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. > > > > > > Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means that > > > /bin, > > > /sbin, / > > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? > > > > > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the > > > possibility > > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported. > > > > > > --Dennis > > > > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2- > > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is > > obsolete. > > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE flag. > > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this is not > possible? > William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the complete Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO).
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:43 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 12:33 PM Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert wrote: > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: > > > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: > > > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving > > > > > > > users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, > > > > > > > Gentoo follows suit. > > > > > > > > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with /usr/sbin > > > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P > > > > > > > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of the > > > > > /usr > > > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there > > > > > really > > > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. > > > > > > > > Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means that /bin, > > > > /sbin, / > > > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? > > > > > > > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the > > > > possibility > > > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported. > > > > > > > > --Dennis > > > > > > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2- > > > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is obsolete. > > > > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE flag. > > > > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links > > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this is not > > possible? > > I guess more generally, I would like to know how you see this USE flag > being used. > > I have some guidelines for split-usr on my devspace (needs a home on the > wiki). > > https://dev.gentoo.org/~floppym/split-usr.txt Or devmanual. Would be nice to finally start having all the fancy policies there. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 12:33 PM Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: > > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: > > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they > > > > > > > > > > > > have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving > > > > > > users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, > > > > > > Gentoo follows suit. > > > > > > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with /usr/sbin > > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P > > > > > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of the > > > > /usr > > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there > > > > really > > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. > > > > > > Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means that /bin, > > > /sbin, / > > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? > > > > > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the > > > possibility > > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported. > > > > > > --Dennis > > > > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2- > > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is obsolete. > > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE flag. > > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this is not > possible? I guess more generally, I would like to know how you see this USE flag being used. I have some guidelines for split-usr on my devspace (needs a home on the wiki). https://dev.gentoo.org/~floppym/split-usr.txt
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert wrote: > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they > > > > > > > > > > have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving > > > > > users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, > > > > > Gentoo follows suit. > > > > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with /usr/sbin > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P > > > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of the > > > /usr > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there > > > really > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. > > > > Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means that /bin, > > /sbin, / > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? > > > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the > > possibility > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported. > > > > --Dennis > > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2- > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is obsolete. That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE flag. For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this is not possible?
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote: > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they > > > > > > > > have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving > > > > users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, > > > > Gentoo follows suit. > > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with /usr/sbin > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of the > > /usr > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there > > really > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. > > Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means that /bin, > /sbin, / > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the > possibility > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported. > > --Dennis I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2- level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is obsolete.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they > > > > > > have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving > > > users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, > > > Gentoo follows suit. > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with /usr/sbin > > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of the /usr > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there really > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. Do I read this correctly? USE=-split-usr currently means that /bin, /sbin, / usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory? If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the possibility to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported. --Dennis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they > > have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving > > users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, > > Gentoo follows suit. > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with /usr/sbin > and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of the /usr merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there really is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote: > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they > have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving > users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin, > Gentoo follows suit. > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with /usr/sbin and /sbin with /usr/bin? ;-P -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'
* Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
Gentoo follows suit.
Signed-off-by: David Seifert
---
profiles/base/make.defaults | 8
profiles/base/use.force | 1 +
profiles/use.desc | 1 +
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/profiles/base/make.defaults b/profiles/base/make.defaults
index b4b872168f1..426c1473f8f 100644
--- a/profiles/base/make.defaults
+++ b/profiles/base/make.defaults
@@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ USE="${USE} cxx"
USE="${USE} xattr"
# Mike Gilbert (2019-07-14)
-# Enable split-usr by default to keep existing installs as-is.
-USE="${USE} split-usr"
+# Enable split-sbin & split-usr by default to keep existing installs as-is.
+USE="${USE} split-sbin split-usr"
# Tiziano Müller (2010-01-24)
# We usually don't want python to (re)write .py[co] files during phase runs
@@ -130,8 +130,8 @@ PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE="1"
# Add in expanded PYTHON_TARGETS or stage1 builds break because of USE="-*
${BOOTSTRAP_USE}"
# This MUST be kept in sync with the PYTHON_TARGETS below
# Mike Gilbert (2018-05-23)
-# sys-apps/baslayout-2.5 needs split-usr enabled.
-BOOTSTRAP_USE="unicode internal-glib pkg-config split-usr
python_targets_python3_6 python_targets_python2_7"
+# sys-apps/baslayout-2.5 needs split-sbin & split-usr enabled.
+BOOTSTRAP_USE="unicode internal-glib pkg-config split-sbin split-usr
python_targets_python3_6 python_targets_python2_7"
# Mike Gilbert (2012-05-15)
# Default target(s) for python-r1.eclass
diff --git a/profiles/base/use.force b/profiles/base/use.force
index b864455a7c8..538c0b37793 100644
--- a/profiles/base/use.force
+++ b/profiles/base/use.force
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
# Mike Gilbert (2019-07-20)
# Disabling this requires a migration to be performed.
+split-sbin
split-usr
# Force the GNU/Linux ELIBC, KERNEL, and USERLAND
diff --git a/profiles/use.desc b/profiles/use.desc
index 7fe2510544d..e48b718cb8f 100644
--- a/profiles/use.desc
+++ b/profiles/use.desc
@@ -296,6 +296,7 @@ source - Zip the sources and install them
sox - Add support for Sound eXchange (SoX)
speex - Add support for the speex audio codec (used for speech)
spell - Add dictionary support
+split-sbin - Enable behavior to support maintaining /bin and /usr/bin
separately from /sbin and /usr/sbin
split-usr - Enable behavior to support maintaining /bin and /lib separately
from /usr/bin and /usr/lib
sqlite - Add support for sqlite - embedded sql database
ssl - Add support for SSL/TLS connections (Secure Socket Layer / Transport
Layer Security)
--
2.23.0
