Le 29/04/2015 23:54, Jude Nelson a écrit :
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Didier Kryn <k...@in2p3.fr 
<mailto:k...@in2p3.fr>> wrote:


    Le 29/04/2015 22:34, Hendrik Boom a écrit :

        On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:47:27AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:

            I'm under the impression you can do most or all of what
            needs to be
            done in the actual init, rather than the initramfs. This
            gets a little
            complicated now that Linux has been "improved" by having /sbin
            and /bin be symlinks to /usr/bin, which might not be
            mounted in early
            boot, but aside from that, I think once you have
            possession of /bin
            and /sbin, then assuming that /etc is not a mountpoint, I
            think most
            other stuff can be delayed til the real init, always
            assuming that it's
            easier to put stuff in the on-disk init than in initramfs.

        Is that Linux that has been "improved" by turning /sbin and
        /bin into
        symlinks?  Or is it Debian?  Or the systemd collection of distros?

        -- hendrik

        Here's the story I read about /usr, and it sounds like the truth:

        When people built the first Unix machine, the first disk,
    containing /bin went full but they needed to add more files to
    /bin . They decided to put them on the second disk which contained
    user data and was therefore mounted at /usr. Hence /usr/bin. It
    was a technical workaround for disk-size limitation.

        Nowadays some distros got rid of /usr but still make it a
    symlink to / because of softwares that rely on it. If Debian is
    now doing sort of the opposite, it must be some trick. I've
    nothing against; as long as you keep /usr, use it at your will;
    it's all about convenience tricks.


Even these days, in some UNIXes (OpenBSD comes to mind), /bin and /sbin differ from /usr/bin and /usr/sbin in that they only contain statically-linked programs. This is useful for doing things like upgrading the rest of the system, so you have a way to recover from catastrophic errors (like /usr or /lib becoming unusable).
-Jude
That's a very sensible reason; you may have noticed I like static linking :-) . Another argument is that /usr/bin and /usr/lib are bloated and may be mounted on a different partition, while basic tools in /bin and /lib/libc.so, which are needed at startup, are in the root filesystem.
    Didier

_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Reply via email to