Laurent Bercot wrote:
Nowadays, the only systems that actually make a real distinction
between / and /usr
are, ironically, the BSDs, where /bin binaries are statically linked to
provide a
failsafe recovery system. GNU certainly can't do that. Alternative libc
Linux users
could, but AFAIK nobody bothers; people who like static linking link
*everything*
statically.
not necessarily. i like static linking, but sabotage linux links only
core components statically, because it just makes no sense for
full-blown desktop apps with dozens of dependencies, you'll end up with
huge binaries, and some stuff simply can't be linked statically due to
"modular" plugin design.
It doesn't really matter where you place your binaries. Executing a
binary should
be done with PATH search anyway, and PATH will always contain /usr/bin
and /bin at
least. If it bothers you, there's a busybox configuration option to
entirely forget
about /usr, which is the cleaner and IMHO sensible choice.
The only case where this matters is when you have to provide absolute
pathnames,
for instance in shebang lines. #!/bin/sh, but #!/usr/bin/perl. When you
have a
script interpreter, it's important for it to be accessible via a well-known
absolute path.
indeed. the easy solution is to make /usr a symlink to / , as sabotage
linux does it. that way you have everything in one path, but available
in 2 different prefixes. saves a lot of nerves.
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
