On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Rémy Oudompheng <remyoudompheng@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 3 mars 2012 10:49, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> a écrit :
Am 03.03.2012 04:21, schrieb Allan McRae:
What convinced me of putting all this in /usr rather than on / is that I can have a separate /usr partition that is mounted read only (unless I want to do an update). If everything from /usr gets moved to the root (a.k.a hurd style) this would require many partitions. (There is apparently also benefits in allowing /usr to be shared across multiple systems, but I do not care about such a setup and I am really not sure this would work at all with Arch.)
I agree that the /usr subtree we have atm and also the distinction of bin and sbin is not really useful and confuses more than it helps. Especially the sbin one doesn't make any sense. So it's nice to cleanup our filesystem and merge things together. While I don't think a read-only /usr is of any use or even advisable I see that having everything in /usr is more flexible; so I am fine with that.
So in short: +1 from me.
Similar opinion. And as Dan said, please don't patch things, I'd prefer that we cleanup things first, and see what is left.
The patches I posted for namcap documents what would be left (the one related to /lib at least). It will throw warnings for the things we can move without patching (libraries and systemd unit files (assuming Dave will flip a needed config switch)), but will not complain about stuff that would require (one line!) patches (like the location of udev rules). The patching I mentioned would only be a transitional measure which would be reverted once the symlink is in place, it is really an implementation detail. Cheers, Tom