Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> /bin/mount foo:whatever /bin
>
> I was considering commenting on this, I think if you want to start
> going down this track it would be simpler to write/adapt a script that
> automatically creates an initramfs.
Yes, this is surely true. When I had t
> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> sbin is for things that should be in root's path. The
Thomas> executables in question are ones that shouldn't be in
Thomas> anyone's path. (The standard example is programs started
Thomas> only by inetd.)
> "Peter" == Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> [Thomas Bushnell BSG]
>> Um:
>>
>> /bin/mount foo:whatever /bin
I was considering commenting on this, I think if you want to start
going down this track it would be simpler to write/adapt a script that
automatica
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. Debian is figuring it out. My whole point is that you've shifted
> the job of doing so to the site admin. If you are expecting dpkg to
> take on the responsibility for peeking under people's mounted /bin
> directories and installing/upgrading th
> > That's a huge administrative hassle. Not only do you have to figure
> > out what programs and libraries /bin/mount depends on so you can make
> > sure they're on your real root partition, but the packaging system
> > doesn't - and shouldn't - do anything to help you keep the two copies
> > of
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:38:33AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> This just seems like change for the sake of change, with trivial benefits,
>> if any.
>
> I agree, and I admit to not having read this whole thread, but has anyone
> made a serious argumen
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Thomas Bushnell BSG]
>> Um:
>>
>> /bin/mount foo:whatever /bin
>
> That's a huge administrative hassle. Not only do you have to figure
> out what programs and libraries /bin/mount depends on so you can make
> sure they're on your real root partiti
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:38:33AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> This just seems like change for the sake of change, with trivial benefits,
> if any.
I agree, and I admit to not having read this whole thread, but has anyone
made a serious argument as to why we need yet another directory for non-u
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 10:02:30AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> I should mention that I'm still waiting for your benchmark
> results on how a drastic reduction in /usr/lib size speeds up the
> runtime linker. On *any* filesystem, O(n)-lookups or not.
>
> (In case you missed it, I explained how
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 07:21:26AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For me, this is a closed issue until you change the FHS. (Something that
> > I don't think is very likely to happen, but best of luck to you.)
>
> Since the FHS tries to be respo
[Thomas Bushnell BSG]
> Um:
>
> /bin/mount foo:whatever /bin
That's a huge administrative hassle. Not only do you have to figure
out what programs and libraries /bin/mount depends on so you can make
sure they're on your real root partition, but the packaging system
doesn't - and shouldn't - d
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For me, this is a closed issue until you change the FHS. (Something that
> I don't think is very likely to happen, but best of luck to you.)
Since the FHS tries to be responsive to what different distributions
want, this doesn't help in the question: Sh
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thomas> We've been told that /usr is necessary to allow network
> Thomas> sharing. Of course, you can network share any directory,
> Thomas> not just /usr. If you want executa
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> Wait, are you serious? The bloat of /usr/lib having thousands of
>> files doesn't bother you, but the two dozen in /usr is bothersome?
>
> We dont talk about thousands, on a edium sized system it is a few h
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Wait, are you serious? The bloat of /usr/lib having thousands of
> files doesn't bother you, but the two dozen in /usr is bothersome?
We dont talk about thousands, on a edium sized system it is a few hundred
directories and up to thousand files/symlinks
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most packages had files in /usr/doc. Most packages do not have files in
> /usr/lib at all, and most of those that do, wouldn't need to be changed.
Changing from /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc was a fairly simple and
straightforward change in a whole
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 12:14:19AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I'm just not seeing any benefits that are worth bloating /usr.
>
> Wait, are you serious? The bloat of /usr/lib having thousands of
> files doesn't bother you, but the two dozen in /usr is bothersome?
Huh? Using libexec wou
> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> We've been told that /usr is necessary to allow network
Thomas> sharing. Of course, you can network share any directory,
Thomas> not just /usr. If you want executables to be shared, then
Thomas> share /bin.
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most applications I've seen that use libexec make it entirely trivial
> to move it to /usr/lib: "./configure --libexecdir=/usr/lib". (I don't
> think apps that don't do this, or something like it, should be a major
> consideration here--take apps out of
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:00:09AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't personally care on /usr/lib vs. /usr/libexec, except that the idea
> > of going through and changing all the packages in Debian really doesn't
> > appeal to me (and however
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in a
>> teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it "helps" that
>> have b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in
>> a teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it "helps"
>> that have been m
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't personally care on /usr/lib vs. /usr/libexec, except that the idea
> of going through and changing all the packages in Debian really doesn't
> appeal to me (and however easily spread that cost, it's a lot of work --
> it's more work than the /usr/
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The difference being that Debian has already split /usr from / and
>> therefore is only paying the marginal cost of maintaining it, whereas
>> Debian has not split /usr/lib from /usr/libexec and would hav
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in
a teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it "helps"
that have been mentioned here, it actually doesn't.
Well, I think it helps in the case of network mounting it; it is easier
to mount
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in
> a teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it "helps"
> that have been mentioned here, it actually doesn't. Yet, splitting
> /usr/lib, which is grotesquely huge and har
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in
>> a teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it "helps"
>> that have been mentioned here, it actually doesn't.
>
> Well, I think it
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The difference being that Debian has already split /usr from / and
> therefore is only paying the marginal cost of maintaining it, whereas
> Debian has not split /usr/lib from /usr/libexec and would have to pay the
> (far larger) initial cost of moving ev
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in a
> teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it "helps" that
> have been mentioned here, it actually doesn't. Yet, splitting /usr/lib,
> which is grotesquely huge
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On May 13, 2005, at 11:28, Humberto Massa GuimarÃes wrote:
>>
>> You said it yourself. Even if your 256MB machine were typical (it's
>> not), the less cache memory you use to cache dentries of /usr/lib,
>> the better (more memory for your apps, or t
On May 13, 2005, at 11:28, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
You said it yourself. Even if your 256MB machine were typical (it's
not), the less cache memory you use to cache dentries of /usr/lib,
the better (more memory for your apps, or to cache other, more
useful stuff).
If you suspect that s
31 matches
Mail list logo
