On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 06:55:18PM -0700, Gordon Haverland wrote: > I'm a UN*X dinosaur. I started using UN*X in 1984. > > I don't like this idea of folding /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin into > /usr/bin. > > I think the reasons to segregate /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin > and anything in /usr/local/* still exist today.
What are those reasons? I agree with /usr/local being separate, but /bin and /usr/bin? What is the advantage to having them separate on a running system? Other than historical practice? (http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/01/msg00152.html gives a bunch of historical uses which are no longer useful.) I don't agree with the Fedora strategy of migrating /bin to /usr/bin etc. I think if anything we should do what would make most sense in the long run, which would be to eliminate /usr entirely and most the content of /usr to /. Migrating to /usr is a bit simpler for partitioning, but not particularly logical. > I want more segregation, not less. Actually, I've wanted all the > config for /usr to be in /etc/usr (which is a symlink to /usr/etc) > for a long time. On a system managed with a package manager, this makes no sense-- the content of /usr is intimately tied to the content of /etc. In other contexts it might be useful, but for Debian it is not. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111213094451.ge17...@codelibre.net
