From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 14 17:48:14 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08CB8106566C; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:48:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D368FC08; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:48:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FFB146B0C; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:48:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:48:13 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: John Baldwin In-Reply-To: <201111140802.13355.jhb@freebsd.org> Message-ID: References: <201111140101.pAE11XEa067064@mail.karels.net> <201111140802.13355.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Ed Schouten , Doug Barton , mike@karels.net, Tim Kientzle , arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The strangeness called `sbin' X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:48:14 -0000 On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, John Baldwin wrote: > On Sunday, November 13, 2011 8:01:33 pm Mike Karels wrote: >> I have to agree with Doug. If the directories were unified and we were >> proposing splitting them based on efficiency, I would say it is not worth >> doing. However, the directories are separate now, and I don't see >> sufficient benefit from combining them. fwiw, I think at least 90% of the >> users at work do not have /sbin and /usr/sbin in their paths now, and they >> do not need them. (Yes, there are still multi-user systems, and not >> everyone is a sysadmin.) >> >> I think this is a solution in search of a problem. > > I agree. The upheaval and drama doesn't seem to be worth the change. Ditto. I agree with Ed that it is more aesthetically pleasing and in keeping with the actual design principles we have, but it would be quite disruptive for downstream users. Especially if the source tree is rearranged, since not all revision control systems (or import methods) take kindly to large-scale renaming of subtrees with substantial patches. Such barriers should only be introduced where there's a compelling reason to do so, and I don't see that for this, even if it would fall neatly on the pile of "If we had to do it all over again, we'd do it X way". Robert