5 ms·

> Oh, and in case you wonder, all of this only works with distributions that have completed the /usr/ merge. On legacy distributions that didn't do that (...)

> Oh, and in case you wonder, all of this only works with distributions that have completed the /usr/ merge. On legacy distributions that didn't do that (...) Laughed hard at the audacity of this one.

mariusor 5y ago
I'm not sure I fully understand what Lennart means by "/usr merge". Is it assuming all paths under /usr belong to the same mount point, or something else?
- blueflow 5y ago
  It means that binaries are in one place, not spread out across /sbin, /bin and /usr. The author is specifically referring to the variant where all binaries are in /usr, but i've seen distros were it was done in other ways.
- perihelions 5y ago
  Here's additional background, and an HN thread: https://lwn.net/Articles/890219/ https://lwn.net/Articles/890219/ ("Debian still having trouble with merged /usr") https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30929024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30929024 (288 comments)
  - mariusor 5y ago
    Thank you. I thought it was referring to an older issue which I'm not sure if it's been addressed, where systemd had problems booting systems which needed /usr to be mounted at boot time from another partition.
blueflow 5y ago
Everything that is not doing it his way is "legacy". This is a common attitude for the author.
- lazyier 5y ago
  As all new installs of Fedora, Suse, Mint, Ubuntu, Arch, and most others are using merged /usr he is more right than wrong.
  - enriquto 5y ago
    The issue is the problematic usage of the word "legacy" by the author. It is disparaging, almost like trolling. Being "legacy" or not has nothing to do with the number of users. There are many cutting-edge distributions that (gasp!) do not even use systemd. Would you call those, "legacy"? Look at the definition of the word, in the context of computing, according to the Oxford dictionary: "denoting or relating to software or hardware that has been superseded but is difficult to replace because of its wide use". If anything, the most "legacy" distributions should be redhat and debian, and their respective derivatives.
    - throwaway82652 5y ago
      No he is correct, the usage is not problematic or disparaging. It fits your definition exactly. The only practical reason to still have the /usr split is to support an obsolete configuration on very small hard drives, which is no longer actually in use by any of the modern distributions. And the real reason any modern distribution still has it is because it's hard to change it, not because they actually want to. So that very much fits the definition that you just posted.
      - blueflow 5y ago
        > The only practical reason ... PREFIX support is different for every second buildsystem upstream offers. You'd need to patch that, its a ton of work. Manpower that needs to be invested without having a commercially visible return - thats why commercial distros rarely do it and possibly never will if upstream does not start doing it out-of-the-box. Rejecting the /usr split is worth it just for the purpose of not having to clean up after Lennarts ideas. He isn't the guy who carries the fallout, even when he is the one causing it.
diffeomorphism 5y ago
Isn't it a bit late for that laugh? Which distros in common use haven't done that already or will do so in their next release? Ubuntu: 3 years ago Debian: supported both merged and non-merged for a while; only merged supported since last year Opensuse: last year (?) Arch: btw Fedora: 2011 ... Any big distro I am missing?
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  The Debian situation is kind of weird with their tooling maintainers opposing the merge and the distro maintainers trying to push the merge through. In true Debian style it started as a technical issue, but now it's a political one. I don't think we'll see the merge actually making it for all packages without issues for a while. That said, there is a clear trend in distros to move to merge these directories and I don't see why not. There are some niche use cases for different partitions containing different binaries and such, but like all niche use cases you're going to need to configure those yourself. The opposition's argument seems to revolve around "we always did it this way so we can't do it any other way", really. This is the stuff that led us to a world where the most popular distro now packages the standard browser in a Snap package.
  - lazyier 5y ago
    Debian will get merged /usr eventually. > The opposition's argument seems to revolve around "we always did it this way so we can't do it any other way", really. My understanding is that the technical objection is that Debian packaging tooling isn't up to snuff to deal with a merged /usr. There are various corner cases and technical debt that cause headaches. And that the people promoting /usr are not doing the necessary work to get Debian to that point. That is they are not submitting useful patches. So some patches and fixes have been submitted to correct the issue, but those have been blocked because they are not technically sufficient or high enough quality (??? not sure). Something like that. I don't follow the drama. But that is my understanding last time I checked. .... And then there is the issue of dealing with the conversion to merged /usr in existing systems. For distributions like Fedora this is solved by putting the upgrade logic into the installer; anaconda. This way major changes, like init systems or merged /usr, is handled when you upgrade from one version to another. Debian doesn't work that way. They want to be able to handle upgrades 100% through the package management system and debconf. Debconf is essentially "install wizards" to allow people to choose configurations when packages are installed/upgraded and doesn't have equivalent functionality in the RPM world. One of the very few meaningful technical differences between deb and rpm. Beyond all that there was past goes at attempting merged /usr, which depended on user selected preferences. So this means that there are live systems that are a mixture of possible "/usr states". So those use cases need to be handled as well. Which means that... Yet again Debian politics has caused the creation of a vast amount of technical debt that must be overcome for it to move forward. Technical hurdles that are not experienced by other distributions. And because of that currently existing Debian installs can be in a sort of limbo half way between combined /usr and not, which is pretty much the worst possible outcome from a technical point of view. Ideally the change should be atomic in nature. This is not terrible as many people place politics as a higher priority than technical excellence. So this state of affairs is actually desirable for many. Which is fine. Putting in extra work to help ensure that everybody is happy as possible with the outcome is not the worst possible thing you can do with your life.

mariusor 5y ago

I'm not sure I fully understand what Lennart means by "/usr merge". Is it assuming all paths under /usr belong to the same mount point, or something else?

blueflow 5y ago
It means that binaries are in one place, not spread out across /sbin, /bin and /usr. The author is specifically referring to the variant where all binaries are in /usr, but i've seen distros were it was done in other ways.
perihelions 5y ago
Here's additional background, and an HN thread: https://lwn.net/Articles/890219/ https://lwn.net/Articles/890219/ ("Debian still having trouble with merged /usr") https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30929024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30929024 (288 comments)
- mariusor 5y ago
  Thank you. I thought it was referring to an older issue which I'm not sure if it's been addressed, where systemd had problems booting systems which needed /usr to be mounted at boot time from another partition.

blueflow 5y ago

Everything that is not doing it his way is "legacy". This is a common attitude for the author.

lazyier 5y ago
As all new installs of Fedora, Suse, Mint, Ubuntu, Arch, and most others are using merged /usr he is more right than wrong.
- enriquto 5y ago
  The issue is the problematic usage of the word "legacy" by the author. It is disparaging, almost like trolling. Being "legacy" or not has nothing to do with the number of users. There are many cutting-edge distributions that (gasp!) do not even use systemd. Would you call those, "legacy"? Look at the definition of the word, in the context of computing, according to the Oxford dictionary: "denoting or relating to software or hardware that has been superseded but is difficult to replace because of its wide use". If anything, the most "legacy" distributions should be redhat and debian, and their respective derivatives.
  - throwaway82652 5y ago
    No he is correct, the usage is not problematic or disparaging. It fits your definition exactly. The only practical reason to still have the /usr split is to support an obsolete configuration on very small hard drives, which is no longer actually in use by any of the modern distributions. And the real reason any modern distribution still has it is because it's hard to change it, not because they actually want to. So that very much fits the definition that you just posted.
    - blueflow 5y ago
      > The only practical reason ... PREFIX support is different for every second buildsystem upstream offers. You'd need to patch that, its a ton of work. Manpower that needs to be invested without having a commercially visible return - thats why commercial distros rarely do it and possibly never will if upstream does not start doing it out-of-the-box. Rejecting the /usr split is worth it just for the purpose of not having to clean up after Lennarts ideas. He isn't the guy who carries the fallout, even when he is the one causing it.

diffeomorphism 5y ago

Isn't it a bit late for that laugh? Which distros in common use haven't done that already or will do so in their next release? Ubuntu: 3 years ago Debian: supported both merged and non-merged for a while; only merged supported since last year Opensuse: last year (?) Arch: btw Fedora: 2011 ... Any big distro I am missing?

jeroenhd 5y ago
The Debian situation is kind of weird with their tooling maintainers opposing the merge and the distro maintainers trying to push the merge through. In true Debian style it started as a technical issue, but now it's a political one. I don't think we'll see the merge actually making it for all packages without issues for a while. That said, there is a clear trend in distros to move to merge these directories and I don't see why not. There are some niche use cases for different partitions containing different binaries and such, but like all niche use cases you're going to need to configure those yourself. The opposition's argument seems to revolve around "we always did it this way so we can't do it any other way", really. This is the stuff that led us to a world where the most popular distro now packages the standard browser in a Snap package.
- lazyier 5y ago
  Debian will get merged /usr eventually. > The opposition's argument seems to revolve around "we always did it this way so we can't do it any other way", really. My understanding is that the technical objection is that Debian packaging tooling isn't up to snuff to deal with a merged /usr. There are various corner cases and technical debt that cause headaches. And that the people promoting /usr are not doing the necessary work to get Debian to that point. That is they are not submitting useful patches. So some patches and fixes have been submitted to correct the issue, but those have been blocked because they are not technically sufficient or high enough quality (??? not sure). Something like that. I don't follow the drama. But that is my understanding last time I checked. .... And then there is the issue of dealing with the conversion to merged /usr in existing systems. For distributions like Fedora this is solved by putting the upgrade logic into the installer; anaconda. This way major changes, like init systems or merged /usr, is handled when you upgrade from one version to another. Debian doesn't work that way. They want to be able to handle upgrades 100% through the package management system and debconf. Debconf is essentially "install wizards" to allow people to choose configurations when packages are installed/upgraded and doesn't have equivalent functionality in the RPM world. One of the very few meaningful technical differences between deb and rpm. Beyond all that there was past goes at attempting merged /usr, which depended on user selected preferences. So this means that there are live systems that are a mixture of possible "/usr states". So those use cases need to be handled as well. Which means that... Yet again Debian politics has caused the creation of a vast amount of technical debt that must be overcome for it to move forward. Technical hurdles that are not experienced by other distributions. And because of that currently existing Debian installs can be in a sort of limbo half way between combined /usr and not, which is pretty much the worst possible outcome from a technical point of view. Ideally the change should be atomic in nature. This is not terrible as many people place politics as a higher priority than technical excellence. So this state of affairs is actually desirable for many. Which is fine. Putting in extra work to help ensure that everybody is happy as possible with the outcome is not the worst possible thing you can do with your life.