Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:34:49 +0100 From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= <uqs@spoerlein.net> To: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The strangeness called `sbin' Message-ID: <20111114213448.GQ26743@acme.spoerlein.net> In-Reply-To: <20111114092922.GA2164@hoeg.nl> References: <20111110123919.GF2164@hoeg.nl> <4EBC4B6E.4060607@FreeBSD.org> <20111111112821.GP2164@hoeg.nl> <4EBDC06F.6020907@FreeBSD.org> <20111112103918.GV2164@hoeg.nl> <4EBF0003.3060401@FreeBSD.org> <20111113091940.GX2164@hoeg.nl> <4EC04B65.4030801@FreeBSD.org> <20111114092922.GA2164@hoeg.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 10:29:22 +0100, Ed Schouten wrote: > Hi Doug, > > * Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, 20111113 23:57: > > If we're going to talk about making a change that's actually worth > > making, let's just move everything into / and get rid of /usr > > altogether. It served its purpose back when it came into being, but with > > modern disk sizes and the (unfortunate) prevalence of the "one big /" > > layout model, it's time in the sun is long past. > > Now that I think of it, it may be possible to sort of combine this with > my approach in a way that it doesn't break POLA for existing users. What > if we leave everything in the tree alone, but only modify the code, so > that any new installations on empty directory structures use the > following symlinks: > > - /sbin -> /bin > - /usr/bin -> /bin > - /usr/games -> /bin > - /usr/lib -> /lib > - /usr/sbin -> /bin Yes please, although it'll never happen :( Why can't we have all the base system in /bin, /lib, /etc with the usual /usr/src /usr/ports /usr/home /usr/compat and the kicker: have all ports install into /usr/bin and /usr/lib (yes, you read that right!) I know that /usr doesn't really stand for "user", so having these contain the third party apps that the user installed is a bit of a stretch, but it wouldn't be the first time in history that something changed its original meaning. (I left /usr/share and /usr/include as an exercise for the reader.) > But now the question remains how we should change the default > partitioning. I think default installations place home directories in > /usr/home, with a symlink from /home. Should they now be placed in > /usr/local/home? No please don't, any serious installations have their own /home partition anyway. Also in the past, deleting /usr/local only meant you lost all installed ports and /usr/local/etc -- something you usually can easily recover from. Not so if /usr/local/home is where your real data lies. Cheers, Uli
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111114213448.GQ26743>