Craig Small <csm...@debian.org> writes: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 03:55:51PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: >> What is causing all the heat is the suggestion that support might be >> withdrawn for currently working configurations which _do_ have a /usr >> vs / distinction, or which do mount /usr using / rather than >> initramfs, or some such. > Which actually was never proposed. There were some "what if" type > posts, but noone was mandating a merged /usr anywhere.
What is the advantage of having a optional-merged-/usr? >From what I understand the main argument for having merged-/usr was to reduce maintenance overhead of having to decide between /bin and /usr/bin or more importantly /lib and /usr/lib and moving things between both locations. With an optional-merged-/usr, one still has the overhead, i.e. no advantages over state quo I can see? As a step towards merged-/usr (only) it might sense to have such an optional-merged-/usr to start identifying issues, but what is the point if we keep it optional? It just makes it less likely that people will find issues with split-/usr (i.e. applications using /usr/bin/foo instead of /bin/foo in some places). Ansgar
