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 > >> wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Seifert > >>> wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 2019-10-13 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Seifert > >>>>> 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