4 ms·
I don't know what a good hierarchy is, but with symlinks it should not be so important where the mountpoints are. So why not keep opportunities to split distro
by jstimpfle 10y ago
I don't know what a good hierarchy is, but with symlinks it should not be so important where the mountpoints are. So why not keep opportunities to split distro contents into convenient directories living under "/"?
Also separating writable from read-only content, or having volumes with different performance characteristics, makes sense in certain situations. Why not have these mountpoints directly under "/"?
- gdamjan1 10y agoWhen distro-packaged content is in /bin and /sbin (and /lib, /usr etc), you can't easily have those 4 directories in a single image that you can atomically handle (upgrade, snapshot, mount, share, etc) and you must have them together on the /. That's why Android has /system, and Linux has /usr now. (https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/ https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseFor...). Ideally, and we are getting there, / should be tmpfs/rootfs, it's populated with the needed structure by the initramfs, the distro is mounted on /usr (readonly squashfs perhaps?), user data is /home, system data is /var, configuration is /etc. And the system should boot with empty /home /var and /etc ideally. Soon...
- jstimpfle 10y agoIf you want all in one file system, make symlinks. Problem solved.
- Touche 10y agoIf I have to set up a bunch of symlinks to get basic packages to work my distro has failed me.