On 19-09-2011 19:19:12 -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: > >> Really, MacOS's filesystem layout is not something anyone in their right > >> mind should deign to mimic/copy. > > > > I didn't get that from either of the links you posted. Seems to me the > > systemd developers are looking at the split as a host-specific / vs > > host-independent /usr. > > From: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-hotplug&m=131206447302056&w=2 > > Kay Sievers writes: > > > What's not needed today is stuff in /. We can think of /usr a /System. > > The entire system is installed in one single directory, and that can > > be mounted r/o, or even shared between many hosts/guest. The stuff on > > the rootfs is always host-only then. > > It is from this that I derive the concept of a few folks wanting everything > in /usr, as-if to brand /usr the new / (where the 'old' / has just directory > stubs and a few symlinks, maybe some minor bits in /etc). That's also where > my Mac comment stems from, in that /System hides most of the details of the > BSD-nature of MacOS X, and tries to dissuade the user from ever having to go > in there.
Not sure what you mean here. An OSX system has /bin, /sbin, and
/usr/{bin,lib}. What's in /Library and /System is typically what the OS
uses for its own "services" and graphical stuff. So, /System doesn't
hide any BSD-nature to me. It's true that a normal user really has
nothing to do in /System.
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
