[PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

David Seifert
* Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
  have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
  users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
  Gentoo follows suit.

Signed-off-by: David Seifert <[hidden email]>
---
 profiles/base/make.defaults | 8 ++++----
 profiles/base/use.force     | 1 +
 profiles/use.desc           | 1 +
 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/profiles/base/make.defaults b/profiles/base/make.defaults
index b4b872168f1..426c1473f8f 100644
--- a/profiles/base/make.defaults
+++ b/profiles/base/make.defaults
@@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ USE="${USE} cxx"
 USE="${USE} xattr"
 
 # Mike Gilbert <[hidden email]> (2019-07-14)
-# Enable split-usr by default to keep existing installs as-is.
-USE="${USE} split-usr"
+# Enable split-sbin & split-usr by default to keep existing installs as-is.
+USE="${USE} split-sbin split-usr"
 
 # Tiziano Müller <[hidden email]> (2010-01-24)
 # We usually don't want python to (re)write .py[co] files during phase runs
@@ -130,8 +130,8 @@ PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE="1"
 # Add in expanded PYTHON_TARGETS or stage1 builds break because of USE="-* ${BOOTSTRAP_USE}"
 # This MUST be kept in sync with the PYTHON_TARGETS below
 # Mike Gilbert <[hidden email]> (2018-05-23)
-# sys-apps/baslayout-2.5 needs split-usr enabled.
-BOOTSTRAP_USE="unicode internal-glib pkg-config split-usr python_targets_python3_6 python_targets_python2_7"
+# sys-apps/baslayout-2.5 needs split-sbin & split-usr enabled.
+BOOTSTRAP_USE="unicode internal-glib pkg-config split-sbin split-usr python_targets_python3_6 python_targets_python2_7"
 
 # Mike Gilbert <[hidden email]> (2012-05-15)
 # Default target(s) for python-r1.eclass
diff --git a/profiles/base/use.force b/profiles/base/use.force
index b864455a7c8..538c0b37793 100644
--- a/profiles/base/use.force
+++ b/profiles/base/use.force
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
 
 # Mike Gilbert <[hidden email]> (2019-07-20)
 # Disabling this requires a migration to be performed.
+split-sbin
 split-usr
 
 # Force the GNU/Linux ELIBC, KERNEL, and USERLAND
diff --git a/profiles/use.desc b/profiles/use.desc
index 7fe2510544d..e48b718cb8f 100644
--- a/profiles/use.desc
+++ b/profiles/use.desc
@@ -296,6 +296,7 @@ source - Zip the sources and install them
 sox - Add support for Sound eXchange (SoX)
 speex - Add support for the speex audio codec (used for speech)
 spell - Add dictionary support
+split-sbin - Enable behavior to support maintaining /bin and /usr/bin separately from /sbin and /usr/sbin
 split-usr - Enable behavior to support maintaining /bin and /lib separately from /usr/bin and /usr/lib
 sqlite - Add support for sqlite - embedded sql database
 ssl - Add support for SSL/TLS connections (Secure Socket Layer / Transport Layer Security)
--
2.23.0


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

Michał Górny-5
On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
>   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
>   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
>   Gentoo follows suit.
>

What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with /usr/sbin
and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

William Hubbs
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
> >   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
> >   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
> >   Gentoo follows suit.
> >
>
> What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with /usr/sbin
> and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P

I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of the /usr
merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there really
is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin.

William

signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

Dennis Schridde
On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
> > >
> > >   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
> > >   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
> > >   Gentoo follows suit.
> >
> > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with /usr/sbin
> > and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P
>
> I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of the /usr
> merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there really
> is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin.
Do I read this correctly?  USE=-split-usr currently means that /bin, /sbin, /
usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory?

If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the possibility
to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported.

--Dennis

signature.asc (673 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

David Seifert
On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote:

> On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
> > > >
> > > >   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
> > > >   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
> > > >   Gentoo follows suit.
> > >
> > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with /usr/sbin
> > > and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P
> >
> > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of the
> > /usr
> > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there
> > really
> > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin.
>
> Do I read this correctly?  USE=-split-usr currently means that /bin,
> /sbin, /
> usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory?
>
> If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the
> possibility
> to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported.
>
> --Dennis

I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2-
level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is obsolete.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

Mike Gilbert-2
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
> > > > >
> > > > >   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
> > > > >   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
> > > > >   Gentoo follows suit.
> > > >
> > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with /usr/sbin
> > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P
> > >
> > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of the
> > > /usr
> > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there
> > > really
> > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin.
> >
> > Do I read this correctly?  USE=-split-usr currently means that /bin,
> > /sbin, /
> > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory?
> >
> > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the
> > possibility
> > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported.
> >
> > --Dennis
>
> I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2-
> level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is obsolete.

That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE flag.

For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links
unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this is not
possible?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

Mike Gilbert-2
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 12:33 PM Mike Gilbert <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
> > > > > >   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
> > > > > >   Gentoo follows suit.
> > > > >
> > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with /usr/sbin
> > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P
> > > >
> > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of the
> > > > /usr
> > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there
> > > > really
> > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin.
> > >
> > > Do I read this correctly?  USE=-split-usr currently means that /bin,
> > > /sbin, /
> > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory?
> > >
> > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the
> > > possibility
> > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported.
> > >
> > > --Dennis
> >
> > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2-
> > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is obsolete.
>
> That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE flag.
>
> For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links
> unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this is not
> possible?

I guess more generally, I would like to know how you see this USE flag
being used.

I have some guidelines for split-usr on my devspace (needs a home on the wiki).

https://dev.gentoo.org/~floppym/split-usr.txt

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

Michał Górny-5
On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:43 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 12:33 PM Mike Gilbert <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> > > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
> > > > > > >   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
> > > > > > >   Gentoo follows suit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with /usr/sbin
> > > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P
> > > > >
> > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of the
> > > > > /usr
> > > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there
> > > > > really
> > > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin.
> > > >
> > > > Do I read this correctly?  USE=-split-usr currently means that /bin,
> > > > /sbin, /
> > > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory?
> > > >
> > > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the
> > > > possibility
> > > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported.
> > > >
> > > > --Dennis
> > >
> > > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2-
> > > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is obsolete.
> >
> > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE flag.
> >
> > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links
> > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this is not
> > possible?
>
> I guess more generally, I would like to know how you see this USE flag
> being used.
>
> I have some guidelines for split-usr on my devspace (needs a home on the wiki).
>
> https://dev.gentoo.org/~floppym/split-usr.txt
Or devmanual.  Would be nice to finally start having all the fancy
policies there.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

David Seifert
In reply to this post by Mike Gilbert-2
On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
> > > > > >   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
> > > > > >   Gentoo follows suit.
> > > > >
> > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with
> > > > > /usr/sbin
> > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P
> > > >
> > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of
> > > > the
> > > > /usr
> > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there
> > > > really
> > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin.
> > >
> > > Do I read this correctly?  USE=-split-usr currently means that
> > > /bin,
> > > /sbin, /
> > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory?
> > >
> > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the
> > > possibility
> > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported.
> > >
> > > --Dennis
> >
> > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2-
> > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is
> > obsolete.
>
> That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE flag.
>
> For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links
> unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this is not
> possible?
>

William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the complete
Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO).


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

Mike Gilbert-2
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> > > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
> > > > > > >   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
> > > > > > >   Gentoo follows suit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with
> > > > > > /usr/sbin
> > > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P
> > > > >
> > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of
> > > > > the
> > > > > /usr
> > > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there
> > > > > really
> > > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin.
> > > >
> > > > Do I read this correctly?  USE=-split-usr currently means that
> > > > /bin,
> > > > /sbin, /
> > > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory?
> > > >
> > > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the
> > > > possibility
> > > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported.
> > > >
> > > > --Dennis
> > >
> > > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2-
> > > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is
> > > obsolete.
> >
> > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE flag.
> >
> > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links
> > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this is not
> > possible?
> >
>
> William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the complete
> Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO).

William's opinion is not the only one that matters.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

Mike Gilbert-2
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:02 PM Mike Gilbert <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > > > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> > > > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
> > > > > > > >   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
> > > > > > > >   Gentoo follows suit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with
> > > > > > > /usr/sbin
> > > > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The idea of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > /usr
> > > > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and there
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do I read this correctly?  USE=-split-usr currently means that
> > > > > /bin,
> > > > > /sbin, /
> > > > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory?
> > > > >
> > > > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should have the
> > > > > possibility
> > > > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be supported.
> > > > >
> > > > > --Dennis
> > > >
> > > > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the complete 2-
> > > > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is
> > > > obsolete.
> > >
> > > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE flag.
> > >
> > > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links
> > > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this is not
> > > possible?
> > >
> >
> > William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the complete
> > Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO).
>
> William's opinion is not the only one that matters.

Sorry, I guess you are referring to the behavior baselayout? That
doesn't necessarily align with the global usage.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

David Seifert
On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:04 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:02 PM Mike Gilbert <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > > > > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
> > > > > > > > >   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
> > > > > > > > >   Gentoo follows suit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with
> > > > > > > > /usr/sbin
> > > > > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this. The
> > > > > > > idea of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > /usr
> > > > > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do I read this correctly?  USE=-split-usr currently means
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > /bin,
> > > > > > /sbin, /
> > > > > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should
> > > > > > have the
> > > > > > possibility
> > > > > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be
> > > > > > supported.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Dennis
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the
> > > > > complete 2-
> > > > > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is
> > > > > obsolete.
> > > >
> > > > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE
> > > > flag.
> > > >
> > > > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links
> > > > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this
> > > > is not
> > > > possible?
> > > >
> > >
> > > William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the
> > > complete
> > > Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO).
> >
> > William's opinion is not the only one that matters.
>
> Sorry, I guess you are referring to the behavior baselayout? That
> doesn't necessarily align with the global usage.
>

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/baselayout.git/tree/Makefile#n93

Clearly the usr-merge in baselayout intends to merge all these 4
directories. There is currently no option to merge /usr and / but keep
/bin and /sbin separate, so the most parsimonious solution here is to
assume that usr-merge semantics in Gentoo is about merging all 4
directories.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

Joshua Kinard-2
On 10/15/2019 13:34, David Seifert wrote:

> On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:04 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:02 PM Mike Gilbert <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote:
>>>>>>> On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
>>>>>>>>>>   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
>>>>>>>>>>   Gentoo follows suit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with
>>>>>>>>> /usr/sbin
>>>>>>>>> and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also don't see the need for something like this. The
>>>>>>>> idea of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> /usr
>>>>>>>> merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do I read this correctly?  USE=-split-usr currently means
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> /bin,
>>>>>>> /sbin, /
>>>>>>> usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that is not the case, then I agree that users should
>>>>>>> have the
>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>> to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be
>>>>>>> supported.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Dennis
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the
>>>>>> complete 2-
>>>>>> level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is
>>>>>> obsolete.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE
>>>>> flag.
>>>>>
>>>>> For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links
>>>>> unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this
>>>>> is not
>>>>> possible?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the
>>>> complete
>>>> Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO).
>>>
>>> William's opinion is not the only one that matters.
>>
>> Sorry, I guess you are referring to the behavior baselayout? That
>> doesn't necessarily align with the global usage.
>>
>
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/baselayout.git/tree/Makefile#n93
>
> Clearly the usr-merge in baselayout intends to merge all these 4
> directories. There is currently no option to merge /usr and / but keep
> /bin and /sbin separate, so the most parsimonious solution here is to
> assume that usr-merge semantics in Gentoo is about merging all 4
> directories.

What is the source or origin point of the desire to merge /sbin into /bin?
I know Fedora/RedHat championed the /usr/[s]bin into /[s]bin bit, but this
is the first I've heard of trying to put all executables in one spot.  I
have my doubts about such an idea, but want to see what the rationale is
this time before writing the idea off to the funny farm.

My understanding for the separation was system binaries that only the
superuser needs to touch go into /sbin and everything else into /bin.  This
allowed for unpriv user PATHs to exclude /sbin (and in times antiquity, also
exclude /usr/sbin).

--
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
[hidden email]
rsa6144/5C63F4E3F5C6C943 2015-04-27
177C 1972 1FB8 F254 BAD0 3E72 5C63 F4E3 F5C6 C943

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

Jaco Kroon
In reply to this post by David Seifert
Hi,

On 2019/10/15 19:34, David Seifert wrote:

> On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:04 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:02 PM Mike Gilbert <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote:
>>>>>>> On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
>>>>>>>>>>   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
>>>>>>>>>>   Gentoo follows suit.
>>>>>>>>> What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with
>>>>>>>>> /usr/sbin
>>>>>>>>> and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P
>>>>>>>> I also don't see the need for something like this. The
>>>>>>>> idea of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> /usr
>>>>>>>> merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin.
>>>>>>> Do I read this correctly?  USE=-split-usr currently means
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> /bin,
>>>>>>> /sbin, /
>>>>>>> usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that is not the case, then I agree that users should
>>>>>>> have the
>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>> to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be
>>>>>>> supported.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Dennis
>>>>>> I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the
>>>>>> complete 2-
>>>>>> level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is
>>>>>> obsolete.
>>>>> That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE
>>>>> flag.
>>>>>
>>>>> For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links
>>>>> unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this
>>>>> is not
>>>>> possible?
>>>>>
>>>> William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the
>>>> complete
>>>> Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO).
>>> William's opinion is not the only one that matters.
>> Sorry, I guess you are referring to the behavior baselayout? That
>> doesn't necessarily align with the global usage.
>>
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/baselayout.git/tree/Makefile#n93
>
> Clearly the usr-merge in baselayout intends to merge all these 4
> directories. There is currently no option to merge /usr and / but keep
> /bin and /sbin separate, so the most parsimonious solution here is to
> assume that usr-merge semantics in Gentoo is about merging all 4
> directories.
>
>
For what it's worth.  All of my systems are installed with a fixed-size
512MB / with everything else (including /usr) on separate LVs.

Whilst sbin vs bin is just a matter of what's available, to me it makes
sense to keep these split.  To me it's always been logical to keep
administrative type (root) tools under sbin, and stuff that's generally
useful for users under bin.

Keeping / and /usr split (or the ability to keep it split) is rather
crucial for me.  It's for historic installations a matter of space
constraints on /.  For new installations it's a matter of keeping / as
small as possible in order to have a smallish bootable system which can
be used for recovering the rest of the system, ideally without an initrd
(which also works to an extent).

Kind Regards,
Jaco



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

David Seifert
On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 11:18 +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 2019/10/15 19:34, David Seifert wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:04 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:02 PM Mike Gilbert <[hidden email]
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William
> > > > > > > > Hubbs
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał
> > > > > > > > > Górny
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr,
> > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By
> > > > > > > > > > > giving
> > > > > > > > > > >   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
> > > > > > > > > > >   Gentoo follows suit.
> > > > > > > > > > What about the scenario when /bin has been merged
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > /usr/sbin
> > > > > > > > > > and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P
> > > > > > > > > I also don't see the need for something like this.
> > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > idea of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > /usr
> > > > > > > > > merge is to have all binaries available in one place,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > is not a good justification for separating bin from
> > > > > > > > > sbin.
> > > > > > > > Do I read this correctly?  USE=-split-usr currently
> > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > /bin,
> > > > > > > > /sbin, /
> > > > > > > > usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If that is not the case, then I agree that users should
> > > > > > > > have the
> > > > > > > > possibility
> > > > > > > > to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be
> > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --Dennis
> > > > > > > I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the
> > > > > > > complete 2-
> > > > > > > level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > obsolete.
> > > > > > That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr
> > > > > > USE
> > > > > > flag.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links
> > > > > > unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > is not
> > > > > > possible?
> > > > > >
> > > > > William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the
> > > > > complete
> > > > > Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO).
> > > > William's opinion is not the only one that matters.
> > > Sorry, I guess you are referring to the behavior baselayout? That
> > > doesn't necessarily align with the global usage.
> > >
> > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/baselayout.git/tree/Makefile#n93
> >
> > Clearly the usr-merge in baselayout intends to merge all these 4
> > directories. There is currently no option to merge /usr and / but
> > keep
> > /bin and /sbin separate, so the most parsimonious solution here is
> > to
> > assume that usr-merge semantics in Gentoo is about merging all 4
> > directories.
> >
> >
> For what it's worth.  All of my systems are installed with a fixed-
> size
> 512MB / with everything else (including /usr) on separate LVs.
>
> Whilst sbin vs bin is just a matter of what's available, to me it
> makes
> sense to keep these split.  To me it's always been logical to keep
> administrative type (root) tools under sbin, and stuff that's
> generally
> useful for users under bin.
>
> Keeping / and /usr split (or the ability to keep it split) is rather
> crucial for me.  It's for historic installations a matter of space
> constraints on /.  For new installations it's a matter of keeping /
> as
> small as possible in order to have a smallish bootable system which
> can
> be used for recovering the rest of the system, ideally without an
> initrd
> (which also works to an extent).
>
> Kind Regards,
> Jaco
>

For the umpteenth time time: nothing will change. You can keep your
(albeit broken) separate / and /usr partitions. *NOTHING* will change
for anyone. There are no plans to change the defaults. This is *MERELY*
about giving people the chance to opt in to the /usr-merge.

That said, the idea of using / as a "recovery" filesystem in general is
broken:
https://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/
And no, this is not systemd breaking your system, or Lennart, it's
distros and userlands not being careful to have things in / never
depend on things in /usr.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

Jaco Kroon
Hi,

-- large trim --

>> For what it's worth.  All of my systems are installed with a fixed-
>> size
>> 512MB / with everything else (including /usr) on separate LVs.
>>
>> Whilst sbin vs bin is just a matter of what's available, to me it
>> makes
>> sense to keep these split.  To me it's always been logical to keep
>> administrative type (root) tools under sbin, and stuff that's
>> generally
>> useful for users under bin.
>>
>> Keeping / and /usr split (or the ability to keep it split) is rather
>> crucial for me.  It's for historic installations a matter of space
>> constraints on /.  For new installations it's a matter of keeping /
>> as
>> small as possible in order to have a smallish bootable system which
>> can
>> be used for recovering the rest of the system, ideally without an
>> initrd
>> (which also works to an extent).
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Jaco
>>
> For the umpteenth time time: nothing will change. You can keep your
> (albeit broken) separate / and /usr partitions. *NOTHING* will change
> for anyone. There are no plans to change the defaults. This is *MERELY*
> about giving people the chance to opt in to the /usr-merge.
Thanks for the confirmation.  As long as it's an OPTION I'm happy.  And
no, other than on my desktop machine a split /usr is working very well,
and even in that case a split off /lib/firmware actually caused me much,
much more problems (for i915 and amdgpu firmware) than a split /usr. 
Unfortunately /lib/firmware grew over the years and so I had no choice
other than to split it off after the fact.
>
> That said, the idea of using / as a "recovery" filesystem in general is
> broken:
> https://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/
> And no, this is not systemd breaking your system, or Lennart, it's
> distros and userlands not being careful to have things in / never
> depend on things in /usr.

It's saved my butt more than once when the (extremely) limited tools in
the initrds on those same systems failed to do so.  Mostly these cases
weren't Gentoo.  Yes RHEL, I'm looking at you.  Gentoo I generally
recover crazy faults without the use of system rescue CDs (probably
required it 10 times over 15 years).  Can't say the same for those
distro's pushing for "recovery systems in initrd", and I'm running
probably 3x more Gentoo systems than all other distro's combined.

The only stuff so far I really wished worked without /usr was editors
such as vim and/or nano (sed sufficed in those cases).

Would contributing a script that's able to check which binaries in /bin
(and /sbin) depend on libs not also on / be useful here?  Perhaps as a
QA check somehow?

And I get that that's a completely different rabbit hole ...

1.  What about non-lib files, eg, /usr/share/zoneinfo?
2.  Should such binaries be moved to /usr or should the libraries be
moved to /?
X.  a gazillion things I haven't even started to think about.

Kind Regards,
Jaco


>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

Michał Górny-5
On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 12:03 +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote:

> Hi,
>
> -- large trim --
> > > For what it's worth.  All of my systems are installed with a fixed-
> > > size
> > > 512MB / with everything else (including /usr) on separate LVs.
> > >
> > > Whilst sbin vs bin is just a matter of what's available, to me it
> > > makes
> > > sense to keep these split.  To me it's always been logical to keep
> > > administrative type (root) tools under sbin, and stuff that's
> > > generally
> > > useful for users under bin.
> > >
> > > Keeping / and /usr split (or the ability to keep it split) is rather
> > > crucial for me.  It's for historic installations a matter of space
> > > constraints on /.  For new installations it's a matter of keeping /
> > > as
> > > small as possible in order to have a smallish bootable system which
> > > can
> > > be used for recovering the rest of the system, ideally without an
> > > initrd
> > > (which also works to an extent).
> > >
> > > Kind Regards,
> > > Jaco
> > >
> > For the umpteenth time time: nothing will change. You can keep your
> > (albeit broken) separate / and /usr partitions. *NOTHING* will change
> > for anyone. There are no plans to change the defaults. This is *MERELY*
> > about giving people the chance to opt in to the /usr-merge.
> Thanks for the confirmation.  As long as it's an OPTION I'm happy.  And
> no, other than on my desktop machine a split /usr is working very well,
> and even in that case a split off /lib/firmware actually caused me much,
> much more problems (for i915 and amdgpu firmware) than a split /usr.
> Unfortunately /lib/firmware grew over the years and so I had no choice
> other than to split it off after the fact.
> > That said, the idea of using / as a "recovery" filesystem in general is
> > broken:
> > https://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/
> > And no, this is not systemd breaking your system, or Lennart, it's
> > distros and userlands not being careful to have things in / never
> > depend on things in /usr.
>
> It's saved my butt more than once when the (extremely) limited tools in
> the initrds on those same systems failed to do so.  Mostly these cases
> weren't Gentoo.  Yes RHEL, I'm looking at you.  Gentoo I generally
> recover crazy faults without the use of system rescue CDs (probably
> required it 10 times over 15 years).  Can't say the same for those
> distro's pushing for "recovery systems in initrd", and I'm running
> probably 3x more Gentoo systems than all other distro's combined.
>
> The only stuff so far I really wished worked without /usr was editors
> such as vim and/or nano (sed sufficed in those cases).
>
> Would contributing a script that's able to check which binaries in /bin
> (and /sbin) depend on libs not also on / be useful here?  Perhaps as a
> QA check somehow?
>
I've been doing that for quite some time, and the usual answer was 'I
don't care, use initramfs, but I WON'T move files correctly to /usr'.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

William Hubbs
In reply to this post by Joshua Kinard-2
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:08:14PM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:

> On 10/15/2019 13:34, David Seifert wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:04 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:02 PM Mike Gilbert <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert <[hidden email]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 19:01 +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 18:02:28 CEST William Hubbs
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 01:11:49PM +0200, Michał Górny
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 13:00 +0200, David Seifert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> * Some distros have not just merged / and /usr, they
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>   have also merged /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. By giving
> >>>>>>>>>>   users the choice of merging */bin and */sbin,
> >>>>>>>>>>   Gentoo follows suit.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What about the scenario when /bin has been merged with
> >>>>>>>>> /usr/sbin
> >>>>>>>>> and /sbin with /usr/bin?  ;-P
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I also don't see the need for something like this. The
> >>>>>>>> idea of
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> /usr
> >>>>>>>> merge is to have all binaries available in one place, and
> >>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>> is not a good justification for separating bin from sbin.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Do I read this correctly?  USE=-split-usr currently means
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> /bin,
> >>>>>>> /sbin, /
> >>>>>>> usr/bin and /usr/sbin point to the same directory?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If that is not the case, then I agree that users should
> >>>>>>> have the
> >>>>>>> possibility
> >>>>>>> to set it up like this and USE=-split-sbin should be
> >>>>>>> supported.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --Dennis
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I agree, I wasn't aware that USE=-split-usr implies the
> >>>>>> complete 2-
> >>>>>> level (/usr and *sbin) merge. In that case, all of this is
> >>>>>> obsolete.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That was NOT my intention when I introduced the split-usr USE
> >>>>> flag.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For bin/sbin, I would prefer to drop any conflicting links
> >>>>> unconditionally. Do you have examples of scenarios where this
> >>>>> is not
> >>>>> possible?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> William has confirmed on IRC that USE=-split-usr performs the
> >>>> complete
> >>>> Fedora-esque /usr merge (which makes sense IMO).
> >>>
> >>> William's opinion is not the only one that matters.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I guess you are referring to the behavior baselayout? That
> >> doesn't necessarily align with the global usage.
> >>
> >
> > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/baselayout.git/tree/Makefile#n93
> >
> > Clearly the usr-merge in baselayout intends to merge all these 4
> > directories. There is currently no option to merge /usr and / but keep
> > /bin and /sbin separate, so the most parsimonious solution here is to
> > assume that usr-merge semantics in Gentoo is about merging all 4
> > directories.
>
> What is the source or origin point of the desire to merge /sbin into /bin?
> I know Fedora/RedHat championed the /usr/[s]bin into /[s]bin bit, but this
> is the first I've heard of trying to put all executables in one spot.  I
> have my doubts about such an idea, but want to see what the rationale is
> this time before writing the idea off to the funny farm.
>
> My understanding for the separation was system binaries that only the
> superuser needs to touch go into /sbin and everything else into /bin.  This
> allowed for unpriv user PATHs to exclude /sbin (and in times antiquity, also
> exclude /usr/sbin).
Back in the day, the s in /sbin and /usr/sbin meant static, not super
user. All binaries in those directories were statically linked.

https://www.osnews.com/story/25556/understanding-the-bin-sbin-usrbin-usrsbin-split/
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html

The tl;dr is that the meaning of /sbin and /usr/sbin was lost years ago.

William


signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

William Hubbs
In reply to this post by Jaco Kroon
Hi Jaco,

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:18:38AM +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote:
> Hi,
 
 *snip*

> For what it's worth.  All of my systems are installed with a fixed-size
> 512MB / with everything else (including /usr) on separate LVs.
>
> Whilst sbin vs bin is just a matter of what's available, to me it makes
> sense to keep these split.  To me it's always been logical to keep
> administrative type (root) tools under sbin, and stuff that's generally
> useful for users under bin.
 
 As I said in my previous message, sbin and /usr/sbin are supposed to
 have statically linked binaries in them, "s" means static not
 superuser.

> Keeping / and /usr split (or the ability to keep it split) is rather
> crucial for me.  It's for historic installations a matter of space
> constraints on /.  For new installations it's a matter of keeping / as
> small as possible in order to have a smallish bootable system which can
> be used for recovering the rest of the system, ideally without an initrd
> (which also works to an extent).

Having / and /usr on separate filesystems is not what split-usr is
about. split-usr just means that /bin /lib* and /sbin are directories
not symlinks.
 
 Splitting / and /usr to separate filesystems without an initramfs is
 not officially supported.

 William

signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] use.desc: add global USE flag 'split-sbin'

Ulrich Mueller-2
In reply to this post by William Hubbs
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Oct 2019, William Hubbs wrote:

> Back in the day, the s in /sbin and /usr/sbin meant static, not super
> user. All binaries in those directories were statically linked.

Where have you found that statement? The "s" stands for "system",
not for "static". See for example [1].

Traditionally, these programs used to be in /etc (!), and were moved
to /sbin later. For example, documentation of V7 Unix [2] says that
"dangerous maintenance utilities" live in /etc (and doesn't mention
/sbin at all).

Somewhat later, in 4.3BSD NET/2 these system binaries are in /sbin:
"system programs and administration utilities fundamental to both
single-user and multi-user environments" [3].


[1] https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch03s16.html
[2] https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=hier&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=Unix+Seventh+Edition&arch=default&format=html
[3] https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=hier&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=4.3BSD+NET%2F2&arch=default&format=html
<

signature.asc (497 bytes) Download Attachment
12