iff you accept /* -> /usr/*, then why not instead /usr/* -> /* [LWN.net]

iff you accept /* -> /usr/, then why not instead /usr/ -> /*

Posted Mar 1, 2012 7:29 UTC (Thu) by filteredperception (guest, #5692)
In reply to: Various notes on /usr unification by rgmoore
Parent article: Various notes on /usr unification

/me ducks ahead of time, but...

While your answer to the question I was trudging through dozens of comments to get to (not worth a sentence in the article?) was quite long, I don't think it was sufficient. I think your answer was still within the debate of 'should the move happen'. But what I think the original ducking questioner was asking was-

If you are one of the people who believe in moving /* stuff to /usr/, then please explain why you specifically think that is better than the opposite of moving /usr/* stuff to /, as that would achieve shorter paths, and since, at least from a limited perspective, _once you are in the usrmove camp_, it seems hard (unless us duckers are missing something obvious) to explain what the point of /usr is at all.

(Log in to post comments)

iff you accept /* -> /usr/*, then why not instead /usr/* -> /*

Posted Mar 1, 2012 8:00 UTC (Thu) by filteredperception (guest, #5692) [Link]

replying to self after reading parent explanation more closely. I guess I understand better the shared vs machine-specific aspect as you enumerated/described. Though given the linking of /bin(actual) to /usr/bin (as opposed to symlinks for each content file/binary), would mean that if I understand correctly, that now there _is no non-shared/machine-specific_ place to put a 'binary' (i.e. under /bin in the old-way/your-explanation). In which case our question remains valid. (I think, still ducking). Or rather, you could say- under /usr/local, in which case I would go back to, why not /local.

/local vs /usr/local

Posted Mar 1, 2012 18:25 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

I think something like /local for code that is specific to an individual machine makes sense. Of course, software that's specific to an individual machine is probably being handled outside the distribution, or it would go wherever the distro decides it belongs. That makes dealing with it a local policy issue, so you're free to name and deal with it however you see fit.

iff you accept /* -> /usr/*, then why not instead /usr/* -> /*

Posted Mar 1, 2012 21:11 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]

You know....
bringing the /me directory into the conversation is just unnecessary complexity.

-jef

iff you accept /* -> /usr/*, then why not instead /usr/* -> /*

Posted Mar 1, 2012 23:48 UTC (Thu) by filteredperception (guest, #5692) [Link]

+1 for the joke jef, but cmon, I know _you_ could have given a legitimate answer to my question... Seriously, what is the short answer for 'why have /usr at all in the post merge world?' (as anything but the compatability symlink, versus putting the opposite compatability symplinks under /)

iff you accept /* -> /usr/*, then why not instead /usr/* -> /*

Posted Mar 1, 2012 23:52 UTC (Thu) by filteredperception (guest, #5692) [Link]

actually maybe I'm just being stupid. network mounted /usr. Probably I should follow one of these links and either read for the first time, or more likely discover something I never bothered to remember, as to what 'usr' means. (?SharedResource).