RFC

Daniel Bradley daniel at dstc.qut.edu.au
Wed Mar 15 22:22:31 PST 2000


Jim Knoble wrote:
> This is a problem the distributions need to solve.  The LSB should not
> `legislate' a solution.  Let's spend our efforts doing things more
> crucial.

I was relying to a post as to why to use /opt instead of /usr. Of
course LSB cant really stop distributions from bloating /usr. Of
course it can suggest a solution to the problem, and put forward
argument that is supported by a concensus.

> : To save disk space many things can be shared, as /usr/local
> : should be local to a machine, /opt is the natural place for such
> : sharing to occur.
> 
> Actually, /usr/ is really supposed to be the preeminent sharable
> hierarchy.  That's why all the mutable stuff got moved to the /var/
> hierarchy (e.g, logs moved from /usr/adm/ to /var/log/, mail spools
> moved from /usr/spool/mail/ to /var(/spool)?/mail/, etc.), and why
> architecture-independent stuff lives in /usr/share/ while
> architecture-dependent stuff lives in /usr/lib/.  Putting `local'
> system-specific binaries in /usr/local/ is nonsensical; then you end up
> having to export /usr/bin/, /usr/lib/, and /usr/share/ separately (not
> to mention /usr/X11R6/ and whatnot).

Really?, I had always been under the impression it was to allow
/usr to be mounted read-only.

If /usr is supposed to contain an OS distribution, but /usr is
also shared, I guess that makes Linux a distributed OS :)

> Here's what should be done with /usr/local/:
> 
>   rm -rf /usr/local/

How about:

[BASH]/usr$ ln -s /local .

> System-specific binaries (and libraries and scripts and configuration)
> ought to go in a completely different tree.  Sun's /space/local/ would
> work, as would a simple /local/ (which is what i use).
<snip>
> : Personally I think it would be good that if you accidentely
> : destoryed your root partition, you didn't have to overwrite
> : 500+MB of perfectly fine /usr during a reinstall. :)
> 
> Machines, busses, and storage devices are all large and fast enough
> nowadays that an extra 15 minutes and 500 MB are trivial.  If you trash
> only your root partition by mistake, those extra 15 minutes will help
> you remember not to do again next time.  If it's the disk's fault, you
> really should be replacing the disk anyway.  If it's because your
> machine was cracked or trojaned, you ought to be spending too much time
> trying to track down the unwelcome visitor to care about those extra 15
> minutes.  Get over it.

I disagree.

> : NOTE 1: That said, if you want to mount /usr you might want a
> : subset of /usr on your local machine for redundancy, so that if
> : your network falls over you can still get a system running.
> 
> Nothing that is required to get a system running without a network has
> any business even being in the /usr/ hierarchy.  If you need it to get
> a system running, it needs to live in /bin/.  Plain and simple.

I meant running and usable. Things in /bin are only to be used to
get a machine running so you can reconfigure it to work again. If
your network has fallen over you don't have to reconfigure the
client do you?

Cheers,
Daniel.



More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list