10 ms·

Finally, we only need /bin!

• kstrauser 3y ago
  Except on Fedora where it’s /usr/bin. That feels so wrong to me.
  • xena 3y ago
    The reason they are doing this is so that you can mount /usr as read-only or possibly on immutable storage.
    • Zambyte 3y ago
      Why can't you do that with /bin?
      • akdev1l 3y ago
        Because /bin only contains binaries whereas /usr is self-contained. It will contain icons/libraries/shared resources/etc that the binaries actually need to function. The idea is that /usr can be a snapshot of your whole system. (/etc violates this but there’s ongoing work on that side)
        • Zambyte 3y ago
          I don't see the benefit of shoving every directory in / under /usr. / can already be a "snapshot of your whole system". Just mount /home separately if you don't want it included in that.
      • coldtea 3y ago
        Because it wouldn't contain the rest of the /usr
        • Zambyte 3y ago
          ... and what's the problem with two RO mounts?
          • coldtea 3y ago
            They aren't one.
          • NekkoDroid 3y ago
            That its more that needs to be done for no benefit.
    • cryptonector 3y ago
      That shouldn't be supported -- it should all be in one filesystem.
    • dfc 3y ago
      I was curious why they are making the change now so I skipped right to the "benefit to fedora" section. They do not mention mounting /usr RO anywhere. Was this brought up in previous discussions? I do not understand why merging bin and sbin allows for mounting /usr RO. The two issues seem totally unrelated to me. /usr/bin and /usr/sbin are directories under /usr. Why does making sbin a symlink allow for mounting /usr RO?
      • PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
        Because in this day and age on Fedora, there's practically zero difference between sbin and bin. You could separate it I guess correctly between system-only bins again, but you'd break existing software that's hardcoded sbin and bin.
        • dfc 3y ago
          I think I am missing something obvious. I apologize for being dense. What does the fact that "there's zero difference between sbin and bin" have to do with mounting /usr read only?
          • NekkoDroid 3y ago
            This change has nothing to do with it. The entire thread here is more talking about the usr-merge specifically (I think).
            • dfc 3y ago
              Thank you. I think you are correct.
      • eyelidlessness 3y ago
        I think GP was saying that it’s /usr/bin rather than /bin for mounting as readonly. Not that merging any particular sbin with bin serves the purpose of readonly mounting. Disclaimer: I’m mostly just a Mac user/interested spectator. It’s possible I’m misunderstanding GP, and it’s not clear to me why the /usr distinction matters for readonly mounting either. But I couldn’t help jumping in to see if I could help clarify something, because there are just an astonishing number of ambiguities and confusions about those ambiguities throughout the comments on this post!
  • synergy20 3y ago
    agree, so I think /usr/local should be kept
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• nubinetwork 3y ago
  Who needs subdirectories? Everything in /.