Am Freitag, dem 16.07.2021 um 10:09 +0200 schrieb Thomas Goirand: > Merging binaries in /usr and getting rid of /bin and /sbin, at the > end, > WILL be an improvement. Debian cannot be the last distro not doing > the > move, I hope you understand that. > > Also, I'm having a hard time understanding why moving binaries around > should just break any system
Well, I'm only an interested SysOp here, but I share his reluctance to embrace getting rid of /sbin and /bin. FHS 3.0 explicitely states that /usr is allowed to be not only on a separate partition, but even on a network device shared by other machines: Quoting FHS 3.0, chapter 4.1, Purpose of /usr: '/usr is the second major section of the filesystem. /usr is shareable, read-only data. That means that /usr should be shareable between various FHS-compliant hosts and must not be written to.' On the other hand /bin and /sbin need to be on the root partition in case mounting of other partitions doesn't work (as in "no network available"). Quoting FHS 3.0, chapter 3.16.1, Purpose of /sbin: '/sbin contains binaries essential for booting, restoring, recovering, and/or repairing the system in addition to the binaries in /bin. Programs executed after /usr is known to be mounted (when there are no problems) are generally placed into /usr/sbin.' So yes, with getting rid of /bin and /sbin you break the systems emergency resilience and deviate from a known and not really that old standard. I'm not quite sure how this is an improvement - rather I'm curious how one could perceive this as such. For all I've seen in my time as a SysOp, I'd rather have my emergency tools in /sbin and /bin than booting a live system every time a server has broken mounts. That all said, I'm not fully against the change, I just don't see the benefit but instead quite a lot of problems down the road. BR Jo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
