4 ms·

So, I'm of two minds on this: On one hand, I'd go farther. I like apt, but I wish that distros would use the same packaging system and same package format. The

So, I'm of two minds on this: On one hand, I'd go farther. I like apt, but I wish that distros would use the same packaging system and same package format. There is little value to them being different between distros, it just causes more work for repackaging/deployment/config. Even distros that build everything could all do that the same way, so any distro and its apps could be fully built from source, if the source is available. On the other hand, this isn't great. Having variety in paths, although it's basically security via obscurity like using non-standard ports, is still an additional level of security. And think of all of the existing config/repackaging scripts/etc. that will fail. But, I'm not an admin nor in devops, so I'll defer to those that actually are impacted...

SwellJoe 10y ago
I think you're going to need to explain how /bin and /usr/bin provides more security than just /usr/bin. I don't see how it is at all like changing ports for services. Packages and scripts will not (often) fail because they're adding symlinks from the old locations to the new. Other distros have already made this move, without anyone really noticing. It'll be fine.
daenney 10y ago
On one hand, I'd go farther. I like apt, but I wish that distros would use the same packaging system and same package format I agree however that's rather off topic. This is not about harmonising between Linux distributions. The fact that other distros did it is merely used as an argument to show it's possible and without any major issues for anyone involved. Having variety in paths, although it's basically security via obscurity like using non-standard ports, is still an additional level of security. No, it isn't. The way you find binaries (when paths aren't hard coded) is by looking through the $PATH environment variable. Both /usr/bin and /bin are part of that on any Linux distro so there is no obscurity or any kind of security gained from this. Though the advantage of having everything in /usr/bin is that /usr can be mounted read-only meaning an attacker will have a much harder time modifying the binaries initially (unless they can do some local privilege escalation and remount the partition). And think of all of the existing config/repackaging scripts/etc. that will fail. They won't. Even those with hardcoded paths to things in /bin won't be affected since usrmerge will provide the symlinks for those binaries. And anything properly written will be searching for binaries through $PATH and be equally unaffected. There's a few crucial tools that will likely need to be updated to be aware of this change but the Debian project will take care of those.
- gkafkg8y8 10y ago
  You seem convinced that $PATH handles everything. That's not accurate. Deployment scripts can make automated changes to config files and need paths. One package assumes a hardcoded path for another package- typically a symlink, but if those symlinks are moving around, that could break. And the package management system isn't off-topic if one of the reasons for moving paths is to become more standard. Apt, Yum, Pacman, etc. all have different ways of doing things, and if the goal is to become more standard, then you have to wonder why the Linux community has not banded together on a single packaging system standard.
  - daenney 10y ago
    Deployment scripts can make automated changes to config files and need paths. And proper deployment systems can handle this. Or it's templated and can be changed with a single variable. We're also not talking about every possible binary ever, we're only talking about /bin which is a limited and well-known set of things, for which symlinks will exist. It will not affect any piece of software ever and associated configuration files, the blast radius is very small and well understood. And the package management system isn't off-topic if one of the reasons for moving paths is to become more standard. That's not the reason. The reason the move is happening is because there is no real point in having /bin and /usr/bin separate. It's a historical relic which offers very little benefit to users and is largely confusing to newcomers. Debian isn't making the move to standardise with what other distro's are doing, they're doing it b/c it makes sense for their users. It just so happens that others have come to the same conclusion and since they've made that change before we can learn from how and why they did it. then you have to wonder why the Linux community has not banded together on a single packaging system standard. You should read up on how dpkg and rpm were created, and why every other package format and package manager ever has been too. Besides the history, every single one of them has their flaws and issues. If we had one that was perfect, that solved every single issue related to package management ever, in a platform independent way that we can all agree on I'm pretty sure everyone would be using it. I'm all ears for proposals though, but so far any time this has been attempted it hasn't gotten anywhere. And this is a completely different domain than moving /bin around.
xorcist 10y ago
When you look into a common packaging format, it turns out that what you really want is common packaging policies. The packaging software is not relevant when you try to install something for one Linux distribution (be it Debian, Fedora or possibly Android) on another where it doesn't hook into configuration scripts, enable services, set up firewall rules or desktop icons as the user expected. Whereas something like Debian "just works" for the end user.
agumonkey 10y ago
Even with apt's format, distros have different packaging philosophy. Arch doesn't split doc, headers and binaries IIUC. I wonder if there would be a way to harmonize things cleanly from source.

SwellJoe 10y ago

I think you're going to need to explain how /bin and /usr/bin provides more security than just /usr/bin. I don't see how it is at all like changing ports for services. Packages and scripts will not (often) fail because they're adding symlinks from the old locations to the new. Other distros have already made this move, without anyone really noticing. It'll be fine.

daenney 10y ago

On one hand, I'd go farther. I like apt, but I wish that distros would use the same packaging system and same package format I agree however that's rather off topic. This is not about harmonising between Linux distributions. The fact that other distros did it is merely used as an argument to show it's possible and without any major issues for anyone involved. Having variety in paths, although it's basically security via obscurity like using non-standard ports, is still an additional level of security. No, it isn't. The way you find binaries (when paths aren't hard coded) is by looking through the $PATH environment variable. Both /usr/bin and /bin are part of that on any Linux distro so there is no obscurity or any kind of security gained from this. Though the advantage of having everything in /usr/bin is that /usr can be mounted read-only meaning an attacker will have a much harder time modifying the binaries initially (unless they can do some local privilege escalation and remount the partition). And think of all of the existing config/repackaging scripts/etc. that will fail. They won't. Even those with hardcoded paths to things in /bin won't be affected since usrmerge will provide the symlinks for those binaries. And anything properly written will be searching for binaries through $PATH and be equally unaffected. There's a few crucial tools that will likely need to be updated to be aware of this change but the Debian project will take care of those.

gkafkg8y8 10y ago
You seem convinced that $PATH handles everything. That's not accurate. Deployment scripts can make automated changes to config files and need paths. One package assumes a hardcoded path for another package- typically a symlink, but if those symlinks are moving around, that could break. And the package management system isn't off-topic if one of the reasons for moving paths is to become more standard. Apt, Yum, Pacman, etc. all have different ways of doing things, and if the goal is to become more standard, then you have to wonder why the Linux community has not banded together on a single packaging system standard.
- daenney 10y ago
  Deployment scripts can make automated changes to config files and need paths. And proper deployment systems can handle this. Or it's templated and can be changed with a single variable. We're also not talking about every possible binary ever, we're only talking about /bin which is a limited and well-known set of things, for which symlinks will exist. It will not affect any piece of software ever and associated configuration files, the blast radius is very small and well understood. And the package management system isn't off-topic if one of the reasons for moving paths is to become more standard. That's not the reason. The reason the move is happening is because there is no real point in having /bin and /usr/bin separate. It's a historical relic which offers very little benefit to users and is largely confusing to newcomers. Debian isn't making the move to standardise with what other distro's are doing, they're doing it b/c it makes sense for their users. It just so happens that others have come to the same conclusion and since they've made that change before we can learn from how and why they did it. then you have to wonder why the Linux community has not banded together on a single packaging system standard. You should read up on how dpkg and rpm were created, and why every other package format and package manager ever has been too. Besides the history, every single one of them has their flaws and issues. If we had one that was perfect, that solved every single issue related to package management ever, in a platform independent way that we can all agree on I'm pretty sure everyone would be using it. I'm all ears for proposals though, but so far any time this has been attempted it hasn't gotten anywhere. And this is a completely different domain than moving /bin around.

xorcist 10y ago

When you look into a common packaging format, it turns out that what you really want is common packaging policies. The packaging software is not relevant when you try to install something for one Linux distribution (be it Debian, Fedora or possibly Android) on another where it doesn't hook into configuration scripts, enable services, set up firewall rules or desktop icons as the user expected. Whereas something like Debian "just works" for the end user.

agumonkey 10y ago

Even with apt's format, distros have different packaging philosophy. Arch doesn't split doc, headers and binaries IIUC. I wonder if there would be a way to harmonize things cleanly from source.