On Mon, 9 May 2011 10:38:42 +0100 Roger Leigh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 09:33:48AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > ]] Bruce Dubbs > > > > | Currently the FHS has a discussion in Chapter 2 about sharable > > and | unsharable files that are static or dynamic. > > | > > | The example shows /usr as a prototypical static, shared > > directory. The | implication is that /usr can be mounted from a > > remote host. | > > | The problem is that /usr has become a place that is necessary > > before a | network mount is available. For instance, if an > > administrator finds it | necessary to use lspci, or lsusb before > > the networked /usr is mounted, | the pci.ids and usb.ids files are > > not available. > > > > I think > > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken > > is relevant in this context. > > These threads also contain issues pertaining to the / vs /usr split: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/05/msg00075.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/01/msg00006.html > > But all of the existing issues identified by having the separation > fail to address an even bigger issue: sharing /usr is entirely > incompatible with a modern package manager, and this has always been > the case. See: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/01/msg00152.html Thanks for the references. Re-reading the posts I realise i'd already read them and it was good to be reminded about them. Given these (4) links and related discussion I can't think of any reason to keep /usr/ separate other then any issues embedded people might have with them merged. If it won't cause issues for embedded dev then I'd say we should merge /usr into / too. > From the FHS POV, I would like to suggest these changes: > > • "/usr is shareable, read-only data" > - Remove the "shareable" qualifier. With a package manager such as > dpkg or rpm etc., it does not make any sense to share /usr since > the content is managed as a whole with the other contents of /, > including conffiles. > - While it's technically possible to share /usr, this requires a lot > of additional custom support scripts to sync the configuration > files and other parts of the software not provided under /usr; no > distribution caters for this use case directly. > - Even when you don't have a package manager, you still have the > issue with the configuration files not being shared (as pointed out > elsewhere in this thread). > • Sharing / works, so permit sharing of / (which would include /usr) > - Sharing a read-only / allows use on many hosts; host-specific > configuration can be stored in a writable aufs/unionfs overlay, or > on /run (for example). > • Permit /usr to be a symlink to /. This gives distributors the > option of unifying the / and /usr namespaces. This is a logical > consequence of keeping / and /usr on the same filesystem. In the > distant future it might be possible to eliminate /usr entirely, but > at this point it would be appropriate to have the option of making it > a symlink. Sounds like a good step. would we note that /usr could/should be deprecated, or would we simply save it for a future release of the FHS? > Related to /usr it would also be good to: > • Remove the special treatment for /usr/X11R6; we no longer need it > now X uses the standard hierarchy (same as for /usr/games). This is [1] for Xfree (!) and [2] for games. [1] http://bugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73 [2] http://bugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=766 thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
