On 2016-10-17 19:19, a...@alexpilon.ca wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 07:03:59PM +0300, Ali H. Fardan wrote:
/bin - for binaries that come with the system
So they never get maintained with a package manager? Sounds like a
really weird way of doing things. If you bootstrap with a tarball, the
distinction becomes meaningless once you've updated packages with a
package manager.
Throw away your Linux-ish idea of "everything is a package", and take a
look at BSD systems, they provide tarballs for updating your system,
which are maintain by the mainstream distribution, and are not under the
risk of breaking because of a silly package manager mistake.
Some of us currently use package managers that bootstrap the system
though.
I have nothing against this, but I prefer the BSD way of doing it.
/usr/local/bin - is for binaries installed by the user without using
the
package manager
So /local/bin now?
Yes, if you got rid of /usr
*/sbin - is nonsense
Details? Do you mean because it should be root:root 700, but everybody
has it in their $PATH anyway? Or do you mean because permissions on the
binaries themselves is good enough? Or because protections on the
resources accessed by the binaries is good enough? Or because you just
don't like splitting things into four?
because of the last reason, splitting binaries to /sbin adds complexity,
which is unnecessary
