Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

2019-10-19 Thread Joshua Kinard
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'

2019-10-17 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> 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'

2019-10-16 Thread William Hubbs
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'

2019-10-16 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> 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'

2019-10-16 Thread William Hubbs
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'

2019-10-16 Thread William Hubbs
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'

2019-10-16 Thread Michał Górny
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'

2019-10-16 Thread Jaco Kroon
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'

2019-10-16 Thread David Seifert
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'

2019-10-16 Thread Jaco Kroon
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'

2019-10-15 Thread Joshua Kinard
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'

2019-10-15 Thread David Seifert
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'

2019-10-15 Thread Mike Gilbert
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'

2019-10-15 Thread Mike Gilbert
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'

2019-10-15 Thread David Seifert
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'

2019-10-13 Thread Michał Górny
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'

2019-10-13 Thread Mike Gilbert
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'

2019-10-13 Thread Mike Gilbert
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'

2019-10-12 Thread David Seifert
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'

2019-10-12 Thread Dennis Schridde
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'

2019-10-12 Thread William Hubbs
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'

2019-10-12 Thread Michał Górny
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