Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 17 Moves Forward With Unified File-System

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I'm all for this in general, but I use so much hand-compiled software, legacy software, etc., that it's going to be a royal pain. Basically I'm gonna end up having /bin and /lib and blah anyway, and end up symlinking them from /usr so that certain things will compile (especially stuff that doesn't use autoconf).

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Aquous View Post
      Why move / -> /usr? Why not /usr -> / with /usr becoming a symlink to /?
      Another reason not mentioned in the FAQ is mounting. If you put /bin into a separate partition, it will be rather useless, since it requires /lib to run properly anyway. While /usr contains all of the requirements already, so it could be mounted on a mostly self-sufficient partition/disk and therefore possibly increase performance.

      Comment


      • #18
        Improved compatibility with GNU build systems: The biggest part of Linux software is built with GNU autoconf/automake (i.e. GNU autotools), which are unaware of the Linux-specific /usr split. Maintaining the /usr split requires non-trivial project-specific handling in the upstream build system, and in your distribution's packages. With the /usr merge, this work becomes unnecessary and porting packages to Linux becomes simpler.

        as a reason. Are they serious? That one is one of the dumbest reasons.

        For everybody out there asking why:
        who is using autoconf/automake the most?

        and who isn't?

        For me the move sounds idiotic. The split has always been for a very good reason.

        / contains everything you need to boot the system and put everything in place.
        Mount the rest
        Start the services.

        Nice and clean.

        Something fucked up /usr? No problem, at least you could boot and repair it. Now you need a livesystem. Oh, that one is slightly incompatible with the system you need to repair. Tough luck old boy!

        Comment


        • #19
          oh and their Myth10/Fact pair is a blatant lie. But what do you expect...

          Comment


          • #20
            I think this is long overdue. The directory structure is a mess in Linux.

            This model cleans it up a bit, improves compatibility, what more could you want?

            Two thumbs up for fedora on this initiative

            The beefy miracle sure seems to become beefy. Now only if they managed to squeeze BTRFS in there...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by oliver View Post

              Lie. Sure, in fedora it doesn't work, probably not in ubuntu either. But on my gentoo box, it works perfectly fine, to recover and repair the system of course, which what this split is for!! Even if my initramfs fails and i only have the kernel, I can still boot from half my raid1 and still repair my system!
              Already addressed in http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the....html#comments

              It is not a lie. This wiki is written by Lennart who wrote Avahi, systemd and PulseAudio and is well aware of the issues and none of those are specific to Fedora which is why OpenSUSE is considering the move now as well Since you brought up FHS...

              http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=236

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
                I think this is long overdue. The directory structure is a mess in Linux.

                This model cleans it up a bit, improves compatibility, what more could you want?

                Two thumbs up for fedora on this initiative

                The beefy miracle sure seems to become beefy. Now only if they managed to squeeze BTRFS in there...
                The directory structure is well documented by the FHS and is not a mess. Distributions like Fedora tend to ignore it and mess it up. Small difference.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                  Already addressed in http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the....html#comments

                  It is not a lie. This wiki is written by Lennart who wrote Avahi, systemd and PulseAudio and is well aware of the issues and none of those are specific to Fedora which is why OpenSUSE is considering the move now as well Since you brought up FHS...

                  http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=236
                  Not quite sure how that related to the FHS. In any case, There's a g+ bit that asks to find broken distro's, instead of just trashin' everything in /usr, fix the broken distro's. Grats, you found a bug, lets see if we can fix those.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by oliver View Post
                    Not quite sure how that related to the FHS. In any case, There's a g+ bit that asks to find broken distro's, instead of just trashin' everything in /usr, fix the broken distro's. Grats, you found a bug, lets see if we can fix those.
                    If you read the blog post, you would know the connection and who said, the distros are broken? The distros don't consider it a bug.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by oliver View Post
                      The directory structure is well documented by the FHS and is not a mess. Distributions like Fedora tend to ignore it and mess it up. Small difference.
                      Wrong. Fedora is and always has been a active FHS proponent. When distributions change, FHS gets updated as you can see from the process happening.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                        If you read the blog post, you would know the connection and who said, the distros are broken? The distros don't consider it a bug.
                        I missread the test, but did read the blog post. But you are wrong. Some distro's concider it a bug, unfortunatly a very low priority one, but still a bug. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=229661


                        I still think it be best to fix the distros and packages, to 'just forget why we split, and dump it all in /usr'. I agree however that this is the EASIER fix.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by oliver View Post
                          I missread the test, but did read the blog post. But you are wrong. Some distro's concider it a bug, unfortunatly a very low priority one, but still a bug. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=229661


                          I still think it be best to fix the distros and packages, to 'just forget why we split, and dump it all in /usr'. I agree however that this is the EASIER fix.
                          You have shown that someone bothered to file a bug report in a single distribution. This does not invalidate my claim since no action has been taken. I don't think any mainstream distribution is going to ever "fix it" by splitting /usr for the reasons stated in the wiki. The split is now considered effectively obsolete.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Is this approved by the fathers of Unix?

                            About this unified file system thing of moving /bin, /sbin, /lib and /lib64 into /usr/, I don't know if its a good idea or a bad idea.

                            What does Rob Pike, Ken Thompson, and Brian Kernighan think about this?'

                            The website mentions "Improved compatibility with other Unixes (in particular Solaris)", but what about BSD, HP-UX, IBM AIX, GNU, Mac OS X, and Plan 9 from Bell Labs?
                            The website mentions "Multiple other Linux distributions have been working in a similar direction." but does not mention any by name.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                              About this unified file system thing of moving /bin, /sbin, /lib and /lib64 into /usr/, I don't know if its a good idea or a bad idea.

                              What does Rob Pike, Ken Thompson, and Brian Kernighan think about this?'

                              The website mentions "Improved compatibility with other Unixes (in particular Solaris)", but what about BSD, HP-UX, IBM AIX, GNU, Mac OS X, and Plan 9 from Bell Labs?
                              The website mentions "Multiple other Linux distributions have been working in a similar direction." but does not mention any by name.
                              Well, the naming convention was because of hardware limitations and hence I don't the original designers have anything against this move and it wouldn't matter much now anyway because Linux is not Unix and most proprietary Unix systems except for Solaris doesn't have any significiant marketshare worth bothering about. As for other Linux distributions, read http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/483921/704a07f93286f84e/

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X