3 ms·
Ah. That makes sense. It's so annoying how deeply UNIX packaging philosophy assumes that installation directories are something you hard-code at build time.
by mort96 19d ago
Ah. That makes sense.
It's so annoying how deeply UNIX packaging philosophy assumes that installation directories are something you hard-code at build time.
- akerl_ 19d agoThe present is built mostly on layers of the long-past :) It makes me think of when Arch merged /usr/bin and sbin with /bin and sbin. Having them split made sense in a ton of scenarios that used to be very common, but increasingly the split was vestigial for most users.
- mort96 19d agoYea, my understanding is that the split between / and /usr used to be more or less: the drive they used for / ran out of space, so they mounted another drive as /usr. As a consequence, / became where you put stuff that was essential during early boot, while /usr was where you put everything else. But these days, "early boot" is handled by initramfs and we've all got drives large enough to not need the split anyway.
- yjftsjthsd-h 19d agoIt was also useful for many machines to share a single /usr over NFS