Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 21:56:28 +1000 From: Da Rock <freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/home vs /home Message-ID: <4F3F91EC.8020209@herveybayaustralia.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20120218123943.147a7842.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <4F3ECF23.5000706@fisglobal.com> <20120217234623.cf7e169c.freebsd@edvax.de> <3D08D03C85ACFBB1ABCDC5DA@mac-pro.magehandbook.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1202172316230.11247@abbf.6qbyyneqvnyhc.pbz> <20120218112252.772c878b.freebsd@edvax.de> <4F3F80FD.8070201@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20120218123943.147a7842.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/18/12 21:39, Polytropon wrote: > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:44:13 +1000, Da Rock wrote: >> BTW I was intending to put across the concept of /usr being user related >> - anything a user may need or use; as opposed to / for the system >> related stuff that keeps it running. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I had >> thought... :) > There's lots of philosophy, tradition and vanished differentiation > in this field. The manpage "man hier" provides a good explaination > for the layout chosen for FreeBSD. However, there are questions > that may arise: > > What kind of programs? Those called by users, by the system, or > by other programs (see libexec)? /usr/local/libexec is used by the programs usually initiated by users. As per the man /libexec contains sub programs for those in /bin or /sbin. The programs are usually run by users, or run as a user themselves (multiuser mode). > What's the difference between /bin and /sbin, same for /usr/bin > and /usr/sbin? Could they maybe be merged when their functionality > is similar and they reside on the same partition (file system) > anyway? Single-user mode v multiuser mode. Most of those in /bin /sbin are required minimal to revive a non functioning system. > The /etc directory - "editable text configuration" :-) - historically > also contained binaries like /etc/mount or /etc/GETTY. Depending > on its location, one can assume that it controls OS things only. > Wrong. In many cases, /etc/rc.conf also contains settings for > enabling services installed by ports. Even though FreeBSD can > use /etc/rc.conf.local (has been known in OpenBSD for non-OS > setup stuff), most things are found in the system-wide file. > But the corresponding start scripts are in /usr/local/etc/rc.d. > Why no /usr/local/etc/rc.conf? But as rc.conf is just a file to > associate variables with names, there's no problem if they are > defined, but not used (e. g. in a limited system state after > encountering a problem)... I think you _could_ use /usr/local/etc/rc.conf (or .local). I'd have to look it up to be sure, but I'm sure I've stumbled on it. Most of us are lazy though :) easier in just one file... besides, handbook says so so it must be right :) > Luckily, most software installed from ports keeps its settings > out of /etc and uses /usr/local/etc instead. Having _known_ > locations for settings makes it easy to back them up. > > How about X on desktops? /etc/X11 is the common location for > config files (if used), but per deduction, they should be in > /usr/local/etc/X11 as X is a port, not a part of the OS. What > about the configuration of xdm? Why isn't it stored in some > /usr/local/etc subtree, but instead /usr/local/lib/X11/xdm/ > is used? X11 I think is. It just isn't completely filled with the conf files - but you can override the globals there if you choose. It does get confusing though. XDM is an embarrassment :P It _should_ be run as a daemon from rc.conf, but you set it in /etc/tty, so no real surprise that its conf files are chaotic too... > This short list is just to mention the loads of philosophy > hidden within the system. :-) I'm no expert, but for the most part it all makes sense (I think); either that or I could be suffering from stockholm syndrome :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F3F91EC.8020209>