On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 19:37:26 -0400 grg <[email protected]> wrote:
> even if only one is used at a time, the system still has two paths to > the resource (which I'd argue is twice as many as a clean design > ought to have...) An argument that I would agree with in principle, but you have to walk and merge /bin and /usr/bin before you can run and remove one of them, assuming you don't want to break roughly half of all the software out there. > but unfortunately there's only one copy - usrmerge has made sure > you've lost any data redundancy you might have had. so all you're > left with is the bloat. One LUN, many paths to it, that's redundancy, not bloat. One program, many paths to it, that's redundancy, not bloat. > I thought the "merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs" solution which won the > usrmerge battle explicitly calls for the /bin, /lib, etc. symlinks to > exist? Because the purpose of UsrMerge isn't the elimination of /bin and friends but the elimination of differences between split bin and friends. The redundancy provided by these symlinks will eventually be seen as superfluous. Then a call will be made to remove them from future standards. -- \m/ (--) \m/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
