Re: usage of /usr/bin
Allow me an addition: On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:13:10 -0700, Charlie Kester corky1...@comcast.net wrote: On Wed 07 Apr 2010 at 00:24:51 PDT Fbsd1 wrote: Why are there RELEASE base files in /usr/bin. I thought /usr was to only contain binaries installed from ports or packages. In many configurations, /bin and /usr/bin are not in the same slice. In some cases, they're not even on the same drive. I think you wanted to say that they often aren't on the same partition (not slice), but it is possible to have them on different slices, as well as disks, as you mentioned. Example: /dev/ad0s1a / - /bin, /sbin, /etc reside here /dev/ad0s1f /usr- /usr/bin, as well as /usr/local In this example, both are on the same disk and within the same slice, but on different partitions. In case of mount trouble, / would usually be available read-only, to provide a kind of reduced maintenance mode, and /usr wouldn't be mounted at all. Think about scenarios where /usr fails to mount for some reason. Then look at what's in /bin compared to what's in /usr/bin, and perhaps you'll understand the logic of it. The manpage man hier explains it very well. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:21:57 -0400, Lowell Gilbert freebsd-questions-lo...@be-well.ilk.org wrote: Fbsd1 fb...@a1poweruser.com writes: Your wrong. I installed the package of postfix and it installed it self into /usr/bin with out any help from me. Believe it or not, I checked before responding, so I'm *not* wrong. I said that the port populates into /usr/local like it should, and having it on several machines for nearly a decade now, I knew that to be the case. You then changed that to refer to a package rather than a port; I don't know where you got your packages from, but I checked the packages for 8-STABLE and for 8.0-RELEASE, and saw that they install into /usr/local as well. So it sounds like your packages didn't come from the FreeBSD project, if they are really installing anything into /usr/bin. Just as a sanity check: what, specifically, is installed into /usr/bin on your system? Most of the postfix executables go into sbin rather than bin anyway, so it's possible that something in the mailwrapper system is confusing you. If you don't have a /usr/local/sbin/postfix, but have a /usr/sbin/postfix instead, then this is not the case. A comfortable, maybe overcomplicated way to check what a package will install - without actually installing it - is to use the option -n for pkg_add (which obviously operates on packages, not on ports). So you could do: pkg_add -fKnrv postfix /tmp/postfix_add.txt This even works if postfix is already installed. The options, for a short reference, are: -f = force, -K = keep, -n = no install, -r = remote and -v = verbose. You can then search for lines that address specific locations in /usr/bin rather than /usr/local/bin. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Fbsd1 fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: Lowell Gilbert wrote: Fbsd1 fb...@a1poweruser.com writes: But that is not true. The postfix port populates /usr/bin. By default, it does not. You have to enable the Install into /usr and /etc/postfix configuration option for it to do so. I don't recommend that anyone do it without a *really* good reason. Turn that option back off and you'll be fine. Your wrong. I installed the package of postfix and it installed it self into /usr/bin with out any help from me. You're argument then is with the person who build that package as it was obviously build incorrectly. The supported manner to install postfix (at least from my understanding) is from ports and that by default installs withing the /usr/local subtree. -- Opportunity is most often missed by people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Alva Edison Inventor of 1093 patents, including: The light bulb, phonogram and motion pictures. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:24:51 +0800, Fbsd1 fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: Why are there RELEASE base files in /usr/bin. I thought /usr was to only contain binaries installed from ports or packages. No. The /usr/local subtree (LOCAL) is for local additions (ports and packages), while things outside this structure usually belong to the system itself; I'm excluding mounted filesystem and other things here for a moment. /usr/ contains the majority of user utilities and applications bin/ common utilities, programming tools, and applica- tions But: local/local executables, libraries, etc. Also used as the default destination for the FreeBSD ports framework. Within local/, the general layout sketched out by hier for /usr should be used. Exceptions are the man directory (directly under local/ rather than under local/share/), ports documentation (in share/doc/port/), and /usr/local/etc (mimics /etc). Because we are on FreeBSD, there's excellent documentation that shows how and why the system tree has a well intended layout. :-) The command % man hier will explain everything in detail. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
Because /usr/local is used to store binaries installed from ports or packages :) You should check the man pages or the handbook for this. Regards, Ivailo Tanusheff Deputy Head of IT Department ProCredit Bank (Bulgaria) AD Fbsd1 fb...@a1poweruser.com Sent by: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org 07.04.2010 10:25 To FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org cc Subject usage of /usr/bin Why are there RELEASE base files in /usr/bin. I thought /usr was to only contain binaries installed from ports or packages. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
Polytropon wrote: On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:24:51 +0800, Fbsd1 fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: Why are there RELEASE base files in /usr/bin. I thought /usr was to only contain binaries installed from ports or packages. No. The /usr/local subtree (LOCAL) is for local additions (ports and packages), while things outside this structure usually belong to the system itself; I'm excluding mounted filesystem and other things here for a moment. /usr/ contains the majority of user utilities and applications bin/ common utilities, programming tools, and applica- tions But: local/local executables, libraries, etc. Also used as the default destination for the FreeBSD ports framework. Within local/, the general layout sketched out by hier for /usr should be used. Exceptions are the man directory (directly under local/ rather than under local/share/), ports documentation (in share/doc/port/), and /usr/local/etc (mimics /etc). Because we are on FreeBSD, there's excellent documentation that shows how and why the system tree has a well intended layout. :-) The command % man hier will explain everything in detail. But that is not true. The postfix port populates /usr/bin. And I am sure postfix is not the only port to do this also. This intermingling of RELEASE binaries and port binaries in /usr/bin is a really big problem when trying to build jails. Any past ports which have been included into the base release should not be in /usr period. Saying system user utilizes are in /user/bin then why is fdisk or sysinstall not there also. That don't make sense. It time to modernize the directory layout keeping all RELEASE binaries out of /usr. I would think moving the /usr RELEASE binaries by the RELEASE development team is a far smaller task then reviewing all 21,500 ports for the bad ones that don't target /usr/local/bin and then correcting their make files. Before jails this problem was not a problem, But with the growing usage of jails this is becoming a major incentive to not use jails at all. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
On Wednesday 07 April 2010 11:13:13 Fbsd1 wrote: Polytropon wrote: On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:24:51 +0800, Fbsd1 fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: Why are there RELEASE base files in /usr/bin. I thought /usr was to only contain binaries installed from ports or packages. No. The /usr/local subtree (LOCAL) is for local additions (ports and packages), while things outside this structure usually belong to the system itself; I'm excluding mounted filesystem and other things here for a moment. [snip] But that is not true. The postfix port populates /usr/bin. I haven't installed postfix, but is this possibly related to the recently (2010-03-22) added option to install postfix into the base? In which case the commit six days later claims to correct a problem with the default (non-base) install. Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:13:13 +0800, Fbsd1 fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: But that is not true. It is, and the example you're giving is one of the exceptions that secures the truth of the statement given in man hier. :-) The postfix port populates /usr/bin. And I am sure postfix is not the only port to do this also. Basically, there are ports that can be installed outside /usr/local, or are especially intended to be. For example postfix, a MTA that can replace the system one's (sendmail), so it takes its position. Other ports also allow the setting of a certain PREFIX variable that will override /usr/local, which is the default setting. Note that it isn't very often done, and if it is, it is intended (as the postfix example you've given, or the sometimes requested statically linked bash within the base system). This intermingling of RELEASE binaries and port binaries in /usr/bin is a really big problem when trying to build jails. Yes, understandable. Any past ports which have been included into the base release should not be in /usr period. It has been the system administrator who decides to install them there. If he insists on replacing some part of the base system with a port, or to add a port outside of /usr/local, it's his decision to do so. Of course, this can lead into problems. Saying system user utilizes are in /user/bin then why is fdisk or sysinstall not there also. Because the creators of FreeBSD have decided that those programs to belong to different classes of programs, and according to man hier: /usr/sbin/sysinstall /usr/ contains the majority of user utilities and applications sbin/ system daemons system utilities (executed by users) /sbin/fdisk /sbin/ system programs and administration utilities fundamental to both single-user and multi-user environments There are often decisions that aren't obvious (or even don't make sense) at first sight. That don't make sense. There are some historical reasons for that. Would you believe me if I told you that the mount binary historically was /etc/mount? Or /etc/fsck? Or how about /bin/adm? Other kinds of UNIX have different hierarchy concepts and naming conventions. And Linux has many more. It time to modernize the directory layout keeping all RELEASE binaries out of /usr. Hmmm... modernize... I know of some Linux that maps all the historical locations into Programs/ or Config/ subtrees... I'm not sure if I would be happy with FreeBSd going the same way, or even further, because I usually find things when I need to search from them, and I can mostly do it by brain - rather than /usr/bin/find. :-) I would think moving the /usr RELEASE binaries by the RELEASE development team is a far smaller task then reviewing all 21,500 ports for the bad ones that don't target /usr/local/bin and then correcting their make files. If should be relatively easy to spot them by variations of Makefile, especially the mentioned PREFIX setting which needs to be overridden in order to leave /usr/local. If I have that in mond correctly, LOCALBASE is the name of the variable that controls where things are put; there was another one called X11BASE, which is deprecated because /usr/X11R6 is now inside /usr/local. Before jails this problem was not a problem, But with the growing usage of jails this is becoming a major incentive to not use jails at all. On the other hand, if you encounter such a problem by the presence of a nonstandard - meaning not being part of the base system - mail transfer agent, then maybe its documentation should mention to pay attention when using it instead of what the system brings, so further problems with jails can be avoided, or at least cured (by a correct procedure given in the documentation). -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
Fbsd1 fb...@a1poweruser.com writes: But that is not true. The postfix port populates /usr/bin. By default, it does not. You have to enable the Install into /usr and /etc/postfix configuration option for it to do so. I don't recommend that anyone do it without a *really* good reason. Turn that option back off and you'll be fine. -- Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
On Wed 07 Apr 2010 at 00:24:51 PDT Fbsd1 wrote: Why are there RELEASE base files in /usr/bin. I thought /usr was to only contain binaries installed from ports or packages. In many configurations, /bin and /usr/bin are not in the same slice. In some cases, they're not even on the same drive. Think about scenarios where /usr fails to mount for some reason. Then look at what's in /bin compared to what's in /usr/bin, and perhaps you'll understand the logic of it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
On Wed 07 Apr 2010 at 10:13:10 PDT Charlie Kester wrote: Think about scenarios where /usr fails to mount for some reason. Then look at what's in /bin compared to what's in /usr/bin, and perhaps you'll understand the logic of it. I should add that comparing the contents of /usr/sbin and /sbin is also instructive. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
Lowell Gilbert wrote: Fbsd1 fb...@a1poweruser.com writes: But that is not true. The postfix port populates /usr/bin. By default, it does not. You have to enable the Install into /usr and /etc/postfix configuration option for it to do so. I don't recommend that anyone do it without a *really* good reason. Turn that option back off and you'll be fine. Your wrong. I installed the package of postfix and it installed it self into /usr/bin with out any help from me. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Wednesday 07 April 2010 11:13:13 Fbsd1 wrote: Polytropon wrote: On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:24:51 +0800, Fbsd1 fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: Why are there RELEASE base files in /usr/bin. I thought /usr was to only contain binaries installed from ports or packages. No. The /usr/local subtree (LOCAL) is for local additions (ports and packages), while things outside this structure usually belong to the system itself; I'm excluding mounted filesystem and other things here for a moment. [snip] But that is not true. The postfix port populates /usr/bin. I haven't installed postfix, but is this possibly related to the recently (2010-03-22) added option to install postfix into the base? In which case the commit six days later claims to correct a problem with the default (non-base) install. Jonathan I installed the package of postfix and it installed is self into /usr/bin with out any help from me. Packages are frozen some time before the RELEASE is distributed to the public. The change you question would have never made it into the RELEASE 8.0 package. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Fbsd1 wrote: Your wrong. I installed the package of postfix and it installed it self into /usr/bin with out any help from me. Unless you or whoever built the package changed $PREFIX: % pkg_info -Lx postfix Information for postfix-2.7.0,1: Files: /usr/local/man/man1/postalias.1.gz /usr/local/man/man1/postcat.1.gz /usr/local/man/man1/postconf.1.gz /usr/local/man/man1/postdrop.1.gz [ ... ] /usr/local/share/doc/postfix/tlsmgr.8.html /usr/local/share/doc/postfix/generic.5.html /usr/local/etc/rc.d/postfix ...every file is under /usr/local. Perhaps you set INST_BASE option? [ ] INST_BASE Install into /usr and /etc/postfix Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
Chuck Swiger wrote: On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Fbsd1 wrote: Your wrong. I installed the package of postfix and it installed it self into /usr/bin with out any help from me. Unless you or whoever built the package changed $PREFIX: % pkg_info -Lx postfix Information for postfix-2.7.0,1: Files: /usr/local/man/man1/postalias.1.gz /usr/local/man/man1/postcat.1.gz /usr/local/man/man1/postconf.1.gz /usr/local/man/man1/postdrop.1.gz [ ... ] /usr/local/share/doc/postfix/tlsmgr.8.html /usr/local/share/doc/postfix/generic.5.html /usr/local/etc/rc.d/postfix ...every file is under /usr/local. Perhaps you set INST_BASE option? [ ] INST_BASE Install into /usr and /etc/postfix Regards, I installed the package of postfix and it installed is self into /usr/bin with out any help from me. This is now I know that. I swapped a empty drive with my live system drive. Installed the sysinstall kern developer option to get full binaries and sources. After the install I set chflags schg /dir/ and /dir/* for these dir. /bin /boot /lib /libexec /sbin /usr/bin /usr/include /usr/lib /usr/libexec /usr/sbin. This should have protected all those RELEASE base directors and all the files in then. With the dir also having schg on, no files should have been able to be added to it. I then did a ls -lo /dir file to save copy of their content. Then I did pkg_add -r postfix-current. After which i did another ls -lo /dir file and to my surprise i see all these new files have been added to /usr/bin. What am I to think? How else would you explain this? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Fbsd1 wrote: I installed the package of postfix and it installed is self into /usr/bin with out any help from me. Hmm, a terrible surprise, I agree. Please ask for a refund of your purchase price from whomever sold you such a package. :-) Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: usage of /usr/bin
Fbsd1 fb...@a1poweruser.com writes: Lowell Gilbert wrote: Fbsd1 fb...@a1poweruser.com writes: But that is not true. The postfix port populates /usr/bin. By default, it does not. You have to enable the Install into /usr and /etc/postfix configuration option for it to do so. I don't recommend that anyone do it without a *really* good reason. Turn that option back off and you'll be fine. Your wrong. I installed the package of postfix and it installed it self into /usr/bin with out any help from me. Believe it or not, I checked before responding, so I'm *not* wrong. I said that the port populates into /usr/local like it should, and having it on several machines for nearly a decade now, I knew that to be the case. You then changed that to refer to a package rather than a port; I don't know where you got your packages from, but I checked the packages for 8-STABLE and for 8.0-RELEASE, and saw that they install into /usr/local as well. So it sounds like your packages didn't come from the FreeBSD project, if they are really installing anything into /usr/bin. Just as a sanity check: what, specifically, is installed into /usr/bin on your system? Most of the postfix executables go into sbin rather than bin anyway, so it's possible that something in the mailwrapper system is confusing you. If you don't have a /usr/local/sbin/postfix, but have a /usr/sbin/postfix instead, then this is not the case. -- Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
