Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people >>> think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no >>> semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc? >> >> I don't see a semantic difference between /bin and /usr/bin (or /lib and >> /usr/lib). IMHO, the only reason for /bin and /lib is that some programs >> and libraries need to be available before is /usr is mounted. > > That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs / distinction, > then there is no "before /usr is mounted".
That depends on how you get rid of it, i.e. if you get rid of /usr/bin in favor of /bin or vice versa. :) /usr can be shared between machines, which is IMHO a reason to have as many executables and libraries as possible under /usr. If /usr is shared, there is also a "before /usr is mounted." > The difference is that libraries are also generic things that are > shared by many programs, and searched by the linker, whereas > executables are not. I see your point, and I agree that this would be a good way to separate things. However, the separation should then indeed be based on whether a binary is used by many programs or not, and not on whether it is a library or an executable. For example, the mozilla-firefox package contains some libraries (*.so files) which are specific to firefox and which are not used by any other program. IMHO, these should _not_ be in (or under) /usr/lib in such a scheme. That said, I don't feel strongly enough about this to lobby for an FHS change. Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
