3 ms·

That distinction only matters when you have / and /usr separate, which basically never makes any sense in practicality. There is some case to throw /usr/share

by xani_ 4y ago

That distinction only matters when you have / and /usr separate, which basically never makes any sense in practicality. There is some case to throw /usr/share on separate partition as some packages dump quite a lot data there (kicad for example dumps part libraries there which are like 5+GB), but that's the single case in "basically never" I had something mounted in or under /usr. But honestly, if you have a case of "I REALLY need a rescue environment that's statically compiled".... just throw a busybox binary on your root partition somewhere. Most distros have it in "busybox-static" package. > It was discussed a few month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31336396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31336396 That just seems mostly BSD being silly stubborn to be honest.

AshamedCaptain 4y ago
> That distinction only matters when you have / and /usr separate, which basically never makes any sense in practicality. No? The distinction could also be self-imposed, i.e. you just put statically linked "rescue" binaries in /sbin just for the sake of order/principle, even if it happens to be in the same disk or the same partition as /usr. It may be absolutely pointless, but then so would be literally any other partitioning of files you can think about. E.g. what's the point of creating a directory for each program ala Windows/OSX? What's the point of making sbin vs bin? What's the point of putting data files in share instead of lib? What's the point of creating any hierarchy whatsoever instead of just throwing everything inside the same directory and let the package manager handle it? You can find very thin arguments for all of these, most of them having to do with historical reasons or subjective reasons, like some human abstractly-defined sense of simplicity, "cleanliness" and order.
gjadi 4y ago
It makes sense for OpenBSD because: - it separates /, /usr and /usr/local - it has special mount options such as wxallowed which is usually enabled on /usr/local only https://man.openbsd.org/mount.8 https://man.openbsd.org/mount.8 / https://man.openbsd.org/fstab.5 https://man.openbsd.org/fstab.5

by xani_ 4y ago

AshamedCaptain 4y ago

> That distinction only matters when you have / and /usr separate, which basically never makes any sense in practicality. No? The distinction could also be self-imposed, i.e. you just put statically linked "rescue" binaries in /sbin just for the sake of order/principle, even if it happens to be in the same disk or the same partition as /usr. It may be absolutely pointless, but then so would be literally any other partitioning of files you can think about. E.g. what's the point of creating a directory for each program ala Windows/OSX? What's the point of making sbin vs bin? What's the point of putting data files in share instead of lib? What's the point of creating any hierarchy whatsoever instead of just throwing everything inside the same directory and let the package manager handle it? You can find very thin arguments for all of these, most of them having to do with historical reasons or subjective reasons, like some human abstractly-defined sense of simplicity, "cleanliness" and order.

gjadi 4y ago

It makes sense for OpenBSD because: - it separates /, /usr and /usr/local - it has special mount options such as wxallowed which is usually enabled on /usr/local only https://man.openbsd.org/mount.8 https://man.openbsd.org/mount.8 / https://man.openbsd.org/fstab.5 https://man.openbsd.org/fstab.5