I would propose:
1) /bin vs. /usr/bin (likewise for sbin) is both subjective and
context dependent. It is subjective because it may be *possible* to do
certain essential tasks with a certain minimal set of tools, but far
*easier* or *preferable* to get them done with a larger set. The ability
to perform certain essential tasks is also a function of the knowledge
and creativity of the sys admin: FHS 2.3 provides the example of using
"echo *" as a replacement for "ls". It is context dependent because, for
example, tools related to mounting various types of file systems would
be essential only on machines that access a /usr that is stored on such
a fs.
2) Therefore, it is impossible for a distro with as wide of an
audience as Debian to partition executables into /bin and /usr/bin in a
way that would be considered "correct" for all users.
3) *On a given system*, the partition of libraries into /lib vs.
/usr/lib can be defined objectively as a function of /bin (and /sbin).
However, since the latter is itself dependent on the set of locally
installed packages, as well as on the subjective factors mentioned
above, it is therefore impossible to partition /lib vs. /usr/lib *at the
distro level* in a manner which will give rise to the objectively
defined, locally "correct" partition on all installations. [Given the
set of all executables in /{s,}bin in all Debian packages at a given
time, it is possible to define a minimal set of libraries for /lib such
that all essential libraries will certainly be accessible in a root
partition. However, such a "globally defined /lib" then gives rise to
the possibility of an overly inflated /lib on local machines which don't
have every possible /bin package installed.]
4) The above does not imply that it is wrong to continue with the
status quo of Debian respecting the / vs. /usr distinction and seeking
to put libraries and executables in locations which are *sensible* at
the universal level and will *generally* work just fine on the majority
of installations.
As a multi-partition guy myself, I believe I must concede that is it
impossible for Debian package maintainers to know where the binaries
that I install on my machine "should" go. It seems that if I need to
support a / vs. /usr distinction on a Debian system, then rather than
expecting the package maintainers to "get it right" as defined for me
locally, I instead need to find an appropriate way to get my specific
context to interact with the generic package managed environment (which
was the intention of my fhs-utils package).
Personally, then, I would cast a vote for continuing on with the
status quo of Debian supporting the / vs. /usr distinction with a
"generically reasonable" partitioning of binary files into their
respective locations, with a note in section 9.1.1 (File System
Structure---exceptions) of Debian Policy to this effect.
-Zach
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/blu0-smtp4306f996a63f6d75619a5f0a6...@phx.gbl
