[arch-dev-public] [RFC] merge /bin, /sbin, /lib into /usr/bin and /usr/lib

Tom Gundersen teg at jklm.no
Sat Mar 3 05:15:13 EST 2012

On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Rémy Oudompheng
<remyoudompheng at gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 3 mars 2012 10:49, Pierre Schmitz <pierre at 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.



More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list