• Partitioning Scheme Advice

    From gargoyle60@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 21 11:14:31 2016
    On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:09:12 +0000, gargoyle60 <gargoyle60@example.invalid> wrote:

    Thanks for all the answers. I shall consider the separate partition for /usr and take it under
    advisement.

    I don't do gaming or other high-end graphics, apart from bilk processing circa 500 holiday photos
    once a year. I place my postgres database cluster in /var (because I always have), hence that
    particular choice for its own partition.

    Following my initial posting I am reconsidering the size of swap as it may be excessive and as a
    rule I tend not to use hibernation. My current old system has 6GB DDR2 memory and only 2GB swap
    which up until now has never been used according to my monitoring. Given my low-end processing
    requirements I suspect the proposed new 16GB memory would not require any swap and I can always use
    the 'swapspace' utility. My primary reason for my planned upgrade is for improved speed rather than
    storage.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gargoyle60@21:1/5 to Trenbidia on Wed Dec 21 11:04:46 2016
    On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 18:11:11 +0000 (UTC), Trenbidia <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

    And I'd move all that personal stuff from XP
    to /home just leaving the windows only stuff on NTFS.

    Tha's the plan.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pascal Hambourg@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 21 23:14:50 2016
    Le 21/12/2016 à 08:49, The Natural Philosopher a écrit :
    On 21/12/16 09:10, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
    Le 21/12/2016 à 02:55, Aragorn a écrit :

    A separate filesystem allows for different mount options. "ro" is one
    of them, albeit not the only one. ;)

    Or a separate filesystem type.

    However the modern use of SSDs and serious RAM changes the dynamic:
    access times are pretty much the same whatever part is accessed.

    And swap is seldom accessed so that just about everything that is seldom written can go on SSD.

    leaving massive spinning rust for the moving data, if you think SSDS
    won't like being constantly written to. Or can't afford it for 'large
    data'.

    My point? Most (but not all, it is accepted) of the reasons for
    partitioning into smaller chunks have ceased to be meaningful.

    All your points have nothing to do with the need to use filesystems of different types with different parameters or mount options for different
    parts of the filesystem hierarchy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Carlos E. R.@21:1/5 to Pascal Hambourg on Thu Dec 22 02:53:27 2016
    On 2016-12-21 08:09, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
    Le 21/12/2016 à 01:46, Trenbidia a écrit :
    On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:27:18 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:

    IMO a split /usr filesystem makes sense only if you're going to mount it >>> read-only.

    Or if you have multiple hard drives like the original poster. Last time I
    had a system with multiple drives, I gave /usr its own drive and things
    ran faster.

    Faster than /usr in the / filesystem on its own drive ? I doubt it,
    because there is not much in a typical system that needs heavy
    concurrent access in / and /usr.

    Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of
    /bin and /lib to /usr.

    --
    Cheers,
    Carlos E.R.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Carlos E. R.@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Thu Dec 22 02:54:42 2016
    On 2016-12-21 08:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    My point? Most (but not all, it is accepted) of the reasons for
    partitioning into smaller chunks have ceased to be meaningful.

    True.

    --
    Cheers,
    Carlos E.R.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris Cox@21:1/5 to Carlos E. R. on Tue Dec 27 12:56:43 2016
    On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
    On 2016-12-21 08:09, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
    Le 21/12/2016 à 01:46, Trenbidia a écrit :
    On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:27:18 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:

    IMO a split /usr filesystem makes sense only if you're going to mount it >>>> read-only.

    Or if you have multiple hard drives like the original poster. Last time I >>> had a system with multiple drives, I gave /usr its own drive and things
    ran faster.

    Faster than /usr in the / filesystem on its own drive ? I doubt it,
    because there is not much in a typical system that needs heavy
    concurrent access in / and /usr.

    Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of
    /bin and /lib to /usr.


    By design, and it's required. It gave me some grief when the decision was made to do this.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris Cox@21:1/5 to Pascal Hambourg on Tue Dec 27 12:55:49 2016
    On 12/21/2016 01:09 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
    Le 21/12/2016 à 01:46, Trenbidia a écrit :
    On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:27:18 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:

    IMO a split /usr filesystem makes sense only if you're going to mount it >>> read-only.

    Or if you have multiple hard drives like the original poster. Last time I
    had a system with multiple drives, I gave /usr its own drive and things
    ran faster.

    Faster than /usr in the / filesystem on its own drive ? I doubt it, because there is not much in a typical system that needs heavy concurrent access in / and /usr.

    Not exactly the reason. / is the default bucket when you make mistakes and well, even for things that are "correct". A full root might not be as bad as a full /usr if you've separated out /var/log, /tmp, etc.

    You can get some performance gains from a separate /usr and /usr/lib (/usr/lib64) if on different disks and/or controllers.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From William Unruh@21:1/5 to Chris Cox on Tue Dec 27 21:42:58 2016
    On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <chrisncoxn@endlessnow.com> wrote:
    On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
    On 2016-12-21 08:09, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
    Le 21/12/2016 ?? 01:46, Trenbidia a ??crit :
    On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:27:18 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:

    IMO a split /usr filesystem makes sense only if you're going to mount it >>>>> read-only.

    Or if you have multiple hard drives like the original poster. Last time I >>>> had a system with multiple drives, I gave /usr its own drive and things >>>> ran faster.

    Faster than /usr in the / filesystem on its own drive ? I doubt it,
    because there is not much in a typical system that needs heavy
    concurrent access in / and /usr.

    Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of
    /bin and /lib to /usr.


    By design, and it's required. It gave me some grief when the decision was made
    to do this.

    No it is not required. It is convenient for running systemd, since it
    relies on programs traditionally in /usr/{bin,lib}
    But even that can be gotten around by mounting /usr in initrd.




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pascal Hambourg@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 28 00:13:09 2016
    Le 27/12/2016 22:42, William Unruh a crit :
    On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <chrisncoxn@endlessnow.com> wrote:
    On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

    Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of
    /bin and /lib to /usr.

    Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
    has moved to /usr ?

    By design, and it's required.

    What's by design ? Required by what ?

    No it is not required. It is convenient for running systemd, since it
    relies on programs traditionally in /usr/{bin,lib}

    Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
    early boot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Aragorn@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 28 01:00:39 2016
    On Wednesday 28 December 2016 00:13, Pascal Hambourg conveyed the
    following to comp.os.linux.setup...

    Le 27/12/2016 à 22:42, William Unruh a écrit :

    On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <chrisncoxn@endlessnow.com> wrote:
    On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

    Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out
    of /bin and /lib to /usr.

    Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
    has moved to /usr ?

    This is largely distribution-dependent, but a number of distributions
    have for a while already begun making /bin, /sbin and /lib* into
    symbolic links to their counterparts under /usr, and some other
    distributions ─ e.g. Debian ─ are now preparing for that merge as well.
    Yet others ─ like Gentoo ─ offer the choice whether to merge the directories with their counterparts under /usr or remain with the old
    approach.

    Traditionally, stuff under /bin, /sbin and /lib* was statically linked,
    so that it could be used in single-user maintenance mode, without that
    /usr be mounted. Lately however, the initramfs has taken over the role
    as a single-user maintenance mode mini-root filesystem.

    By design, and it's required.

    What's by design ? Required by what ?

    It may have been corrected in the meantime, but there was a time a
    number of years ago when Poettering and Sievers would put stuff needed
    at boot time under /usr/lib* instead of under /lib ─ mostly firmware and
    some kernel modules.

    Granted, that was not part of systemd proper as an init system, but it
    was part of udev, and udev had been rolled into the systemd package.
    This is one of the reasons why the Gentoo developers forked udev into
    eudev, which is now already used by other distributions as well ─ e.g. Slackware.

    No it is not required. It is convenient for running systemd, since it
    relies on programs traditionally in /usr/{bin,lib}

    Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
    early boot.

    Maybe not anymore, but it used to ─ see above.

    --
    = Aragorn =

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From William Unruh@21:1/5 to Pascal Hambourg on Wed Dec 28 01:02:31 2016
    On 2016-12-27, Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
    Le 27/12/2016 ? 22:42, William Unruh a ?crit :
    On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <chrisncoxn@endlessnow.com> wrote:
    On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

    Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of >>>> /bin and /lib to /usr.

    Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
    has moved to /usr ?

    Sure. Everything. On my machine )Mageia 5 and Mageia 6) /bin is soft
    link to /usr/bin, and /lib is a soft link to /usr/lib.



    By design, and it's required.

    What's by design ? Required by what ?

    No it is not required. It is convenient for running systemd, since it
    relies on programs traditionally in /usr/{bin,lib}

    Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
    early boot.

    Yes, it does.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Carlos E. R.@21:1/5 to Pascal Hambourg on Wed Dec 28 02:20:43 2016
    On 2016-12-28 00:13, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
    Le 27/12/2016 22:42, William Unruh a crit :
    On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <> wrote:
    On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

    Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of >>>> /bin and /lib to /usr.

    Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
    has moved to /usr ?

    Most of my /bin contains symlinks:

    cer@Telcontar:~> l /bin/
    total 4940
    drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 26 15:15 ./
    drwxr-xr-x 37 root root 4096 Dec 26 14:10 ../
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Dec 26 14:26 arch -> /usr/bin/arch*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Dec 26 14:27 awk -> /etc/alternatives/awk* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Dec 26 14:26 basename -> /usr/bin/basename* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 697816 Oct 18 13:55 bash*
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 46080 Oct 19 01:25 blkparse*
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 37872 Oct 19 01:25 blktrace*
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 891 Oct 19 01:25 btrace*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 Dec 26 14:26 cat -> /usr/bin/cat*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Dec 26 14:26 chgrp -> /usr/bin/chgrp* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Dec 26 14:26 chmod -> /usr/bin/chmod* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Dec 26 14:26 chown -> /usr/bin/chown* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Dec 26 14:36 chvt -> /usr/bin/chvt*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Dec 26 14:36 clrunimap ->
    /usr/bin/clrunimap*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 Dec 26 14:26 cp -> /usr/bin/cp*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Dec 26 14:27 cpio -> /usr/bin/cpio*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Dec 26 14:42 csh -> tcsh*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Dec 26 14:26 date -> /usr/bin/date*
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10640 Oct 30 16:58 dbus-cleanup-sockets*
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 426616 Oct 30 16:58 dbus-daemon*
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 18944 Oct 30 16:58 dbus-monitor*
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 23176 Oct 30 16:58 dbus-send*
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10560 Oct 30 16:58 dbus-uuidgen*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 Dec 26 14:26 dd -> /usr/bin/dd*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Dec 26 14:51 dd_rescue ->
    /usr/bin/dd_rescue*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Dec 26 14:53 dd_rhelp -> /usr/bin/dd_rhelp* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Dec 26 14:36 deallocvt ->
    /usr/bin/deallocvt*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 Dec 26 14:26 df -> /usr/bin/df*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Dec 26 14:36 dmesg -> /usr/bin/dmesg* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Dec 26 14:43 dnsdomainname -> hostname* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Dec 26 14:43 domainname -> hostname*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Dec 26 14:36 dumpkeys -> /usr/bin/dumpkeys* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Dec 26 14:26 echo -> /usr/bin/echo*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 Dec 26 14:48 ed -> /usr/bin/ed*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Dec 26 14:27 egrep -> /usr/bin/egrep* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 Dec 26 15:15 ex -> vim*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Dec 26 14:26 false -> /usr/bin/false* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Dec 26 14:36 fgconsole ->
    /usr/bin/fgconsole*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Dec 26 14:27 fgrep -> /usr/bin/fgrep* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Dec 26 14:27 fillup -> /usr/bin/fillup* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Dec 26 14:27 find -> /usr/bin/find*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Dec 26 14:36 findmnt -> /usr/bin/findmnt* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6440 Oct 7 17:50 fsync*
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 40328 Oct 7 17:51 fuser*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Dec 26 14:27 gawk -> /usr/bin/gawk*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Dec 26 14:36 getkeycodes -> /usr/bin/getkeycodes*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Dec 26 14:36 getunimap ->
    /usr/bin/getunimap*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Dec 26 14:27 grep -> /usr/bin/grep*


    ...


    By design, and it's required.

    What's by design ? Required by what ?

    Debatable.


    No it is not required. It is convenient for running systemd, since it
    relies on programs traditionally in /usr/{bin,lib}

    Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
    early boot.

    AFAIK, it simple coincided in time with systemd appeareance.

    --
    Cheers,
    Carlos E.R.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pascal Hambourg@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 28 11:17:18 2016
    Le 28/12/2016 02:20, Carlos E. R. a crit :
    On 2016-12-28 00:13, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
    Le 27/12/2016 22:42, William Unruh a crit :
    On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <> wrote:
    On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

    Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of >>>>> /bin and /lib to /usr.

    Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
    has moved to /usr ?

    Most of my /bin contains symlinks:

    cer@Telcontar:~> l /bin/
    total 4940
    drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 26 15:15 ./
    drwxr-xr-x 37 root root 4096 Dec 26 14:10 ../
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Dec 26 14:26 arch -> /usr/bin/arch* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Dec 26 14:27 awk -> /etc/alternatives/awk* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Dec 26 14:26 basename -> /usr/bin/basename* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 697816 Oct 18 13:55 bash*
    (...)

    Wow. First time I'm seeing this. I just wonder what's the use. A real
    /usr merge would be simpler.
    What distribution is this ? /etc/alternatives suggests it is a Debian derivative.
    In my pure Debian there is no symlink in /bin or /sbin pointing to /usr.
    The target of symlinks pointing to /etc/alternatives all are in the same directory, not in /usr.

    No it is not required. It is convenient for running systemd, since it
    relies on programs traditionally in /usr/{bin,lib}

    Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
    early boot.

    AFAIK, it simple coincided in time with systemd appeareance.

    Correlation does not imply causality.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pascal Hambourg@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 28 11:07:11 2016
    Le 28/12/2016 à 01:00, Aragorn a écrit :
    On Wednesday 28 December 2016 00:13, Pascal Hambourg conveyed the
    following to comp.os.linux.setup...

    Le 27/12/2016 à 22:42, William Unruh a écrit :

    On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <chrisncoxn@endlessnow.com> wrote:
    On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

    Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out
    of /bin and /lib to /usr.

    Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
    has moved to /usr ?

    This is largely distribution-dependent, but a number of distributions
    have for a while already begun making /bin, /sbin and /lib* into
    symbolic links to their counterparts under /usr, and some other
    distributions ─ e.g. Debian ─ are now preparing for that merge as well.

    You are now talking about the "/usr merge", which merges *everything* in
    /bin, /sbin and /lib* with their /usr counterparts. So anything that was present in /bin is still present in /bin (although /bin becomes a
    symlink pointing to /usr/bin) and also present in /usr/bin. It is a
    different subject.

    It may have been corrected in the meantime, but there was a time a
    number of years ago when Poettering and Sievers would put stuff needed
    at boot time under /usr/lib* instead of under /lib ─ mostly firmware and some kernel modules.

    Granted, that was not part of systemd proper as an init system, but it
    was part of udev, and udev had been rolled into the systemd package.

    Kernel modules and firmwares were never part of udev nor systemd. They
    are part of the kernel. I don't see how Poettering and Sievers could put somewhere files that do not belong to their software. AFAIK, kernel
    modules have always been installed in /lib. I remember seing firmware
    files installed in /usr/ by Debian once, but that was a long time before systemd and was corrected in later releases as an obvious mistake.

    Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
    early boot.

    Maybe not anymore, but it used to ─ see above.

    No evidence seen above.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Carlos E.R.@21:1/5 to Pascal Hambourg on Wed Dec 28 15:06:48 2016
    On 2016-12-28 11:17, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
    Le 28/12/2016 02:20, Carlos E. R. a crit :
    On 2016-12-28 00:13, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
    Le 27/12/2016 22:42, William Unruh a crit :
    On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <> wrote:
    On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

    Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved
    out of
    /bin and /lib to /usr.

    Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
    has moved to /usr ?

    Most of my /bin contains symlinks:

    cer@Telcontar:~> l /bin/
    total 4940
    drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 26 15:15 ./
    drwxr-xr-x 37 root root 4096 Dec 26 14:10 ../
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Dec 26 14:26 arch -> /usr/bin/arch*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Dec 26 14:27 awk ->
    /etc/alternatives/awk*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Dec 26 14:26 basename ->
    /usr/bin/basename*
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 697816 Oct 18 13:55 bash*
    (...)

    Wow. First time I'm seeing this. I just wonder what's the use. A real
    /usr merge would be simpler.
    What distribution is this ? /etc/alternatives suggests it is a Debian derivative.

    openSUSE Leap 42.2.

    They have not migrated the entire /bin, but parts of it, so they use
    symlink for files.

    In my pure Debian there is no symlink in /bin or /sbin pointing to /usr.
    The target of symlinks pointing to /etc/alternatives all are in the same directory, not in /usr.

    No it is not required. It is convenient for running systemd, since it
    relies on programs traditionally in /usr/{bin,lib}

    Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
    early boot.

    AFAIK, it simple coincided in time with systemd appeareance.

    Correlation does not imply causality.

    Some other post (Aragorn) said it was really related to udev, which
    became part of systemd

    --
    Cheers, Carlos.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From William Unruh@21:1/5 to Pascal Hambourg on Wed Dec 28 16:32:51 2016
    On 2016-12-28, Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
    Le 28/12/2016 ? 02:20, Carlos E. R. a ?crit :
    On 2016-12-28 00:13, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
    Le 27/12/2016 ? 22:42, William Unruh a ?crit :
    On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <> wrote:
    On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

    Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of >>>>>> /bin and /lib to /usr.

    Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
    has moved to /usr ?

    Most of my /bin contains symlinks:

    cer@Telcontar:~> l /bin/
    total 4940
    drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 26 15:15 ./
    drwxr-xr-x 37 root root 4096 Dec 26 14:10 ../
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Dec 26 14:26 arch -> /usr/bin/arch*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Dec 26 14:27 awk -> /etc/alternatives/awk* >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Dec 26 14:26 basename -> /usr/bin/basename* >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 697816 Oct 18 13:55 bash*
    (...)

    Wow. First time I'm seeing this. I just wonder what's the use. A real
    /usr merge would be simpler.

    alternatives serves a different puprpose. It is for having various
    versions installed and having the used awk for example, point to the one
    you want.

    What distribution is this ? /etc/alternatives suggests it is a Debian derivative.

    Nope. Also exists on rpm (Redhat) derivatives.


    In my pure Debian there is no symlink in /bin or /sbin pointing to /usr.
    The target of symlinks pointing to /etc/alternatives all are in the same directory, not in /usr.

    No it is not required. It is convenient for running systemd, since it
    relies on programs traditionally in /usr/{bin,lib}

    Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
    early boot.

    AFAIK, it simple coincided in time with systemd appeareance.

    Correlation does not imply causality.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From William Unruh@21:1/5 to Pascal Hambourg on Wed Dec 28 16:29:45 2016
    On 2016-12-28, Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
    Le 28/12/2016 ?? 01:00, Aragorn a ??crit :
    On Wednesday 28 December 2016 00:13, Pascal Hambourg conveyed the
    following to comp.os.linux.setup...

    Le 27/12/2016 ?? 22:42, William Unruh a ??crit :

    On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <chrisncoxn@endlessnow.com> wrote:
    On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

    Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out >>>>>> of /bin and /lib to /usr.

    Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
    has moved to /usr ?

    This is largely distribution-dependent, but a number of distributions
    have for a while already begun making /bin, /sbin and /lib* into
    symbolic links to their counterparts under /usr, and some other
    distributions ??? e.g. Debian ??? are now preparing for that merge as well.

    You are now talking about the "/usr merge", which merges *everything* in /bin, /sbin and /lib* with their /usr counterparts. So anything that was present in /bin is still present in /bin (although /bin becomes a
    symlink pointing to /usr/bin) and also present in /usr/bin. It is a different subject.

    No it is not. If for example /usr/bin is not mounted then there is
    nothing whatsoever in /bin. It is empty and the system is unbootable.



    It may have been corrected in the meantime, but there was a time a
    number of years ago when Poettering and Sievers would put stuff needed
    at boot time under /usr/lib* instead of under /lib ??? mostly firmware and >> some kernel modules.

    Granted, that was not part of systemd proper as an init system, but it
    was part of udev, and udev had been rolled into the systemd package.

    Kernel modules and firmwares were never part of udev nor systemd. They
    are part of the kernel. I don't see how Poettering and Sievers could put somewhere files that do not belong to their software. AFAIK, kernel

    By demanding that /usr/bin/lib be useable at boot.
    At that point the separate /bin and /usr/bin became pointless.

    modules have always been installed in /lib. I remember seing firmware

    They are not anymore. They are in /usr/lib. If /usr/lib is not there,
    the system is unbootable.


    files installed in /usr/ by Debian once, but that was a long time before systemd and was corrected in later releases as an obvious mistake.

    It is no longer a mistake but standard operating procedure.


    Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
    early boot.

    Maybe not anymore, but it used to ??? see above.

    No evidence seen above.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)