Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debian Sticking With Merged /usr Plan

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by swagg_boi View Post

    I tried this with and without the ".sh" extension and it worked both ways... I assumed the file extension would be strictly cosmetic but apparently the shebang is too. I've been using "/usr/bin/env perl" for Perl scripts so I might just start doing "/usr/bin/env sh" on my shell scripts just to be extra special
    The system is smart, but it only infer so much. The shebang is there to help you run a csh or zsh script on a system that uses bash by default.
    And while I strongly believe that the shebang is the least of your worries when you're scripting something, my original assertions was wrt when the file system will get cleaned up. I only stated that as long the folders are there (even in symlink form), the the file system doesn't really change. This change is merely a way for making it simpler to locate a utility and not having to search two locations instead of one - it will make life easier for programs and avoid some embarrassing bugs in the future.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Murple View Post
      Arch Linux did this in 2012 (/lib) and 2013 (bin&sbin). Unless I'm missing something, which I usually am
      Yes, you are missing that this news is about Debian and not Arch. So is there a point to your comment other than you being a typical Arch Linux fanboy/girl?

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by cybertraveler View Post
        I really like this idea. I think it makes the file system layout cleaner and simpler.

        The only objection / concern I had in my mind was regarding /bin (etc) allowing for the creation of a minimal rescue system. However the Freedesktop.org FAQ addresses my concern quite well:

        I felt the same for a long time. The idea of having / as a rescue system never made sense to me; if your system is upside down it's usually because the filesystem is corrupted, or a problem with the disk itself, or a sata/sas driver problem etc. Either way by definition you won't be able to boot from /.

        Initrd is the right answer is many cases and when it isn't, then that's what live USB-based distros are for.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by hreindl View Post
          as always you are too dumb to recognize the issus wehn the same binary is on onew distributuin in /usr/bin and on a different one in /bin while people with expierience can remeber random issues where something was multiple times moved and so broke aliases and absolute calls in scripts every time

          ReadOnlyPaths=/usr is so uch cleaner than a dozen of namesapces but wait, you are living in the 19770's and don't understand that
          As always you're too dumb to even understand what you are replying to.

          FYI it was about removing the symlink of /bin -> /usr/bin and nothing to do with the actual merge itself but of course it takes a tiny bit of brain to understand context, something you clearly don't have.

          Comment


          • #25
            If you write new scripts you could use the "#!/bin/env xxx" approach for the interpreter but this is certainly not the dealbreaking issue as there will always be be the /bin to /usr/bin symlink. If you begin to check for files inside /usr which did not be there before with hardcoded path it would break however. I don't know how many scripts use this kind of existence checks but that's something that would break on unmerged systems - you have to think a little bit more, but nothing critical. A merge of bin and sbin would lead to much more incompatible scripts (for backwards compatible use).

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by cybertraveler View Post
              I really like this idea. I think it makes the file system layout cleaner and simpler.

              The only objection / concern I had in my mind was regarding /bin (etc) allowing for the creation of a minimal rescue system. However the Freedesktop.org FAQ addresses my concern quite well:

              Myth #9: The /usr split is useful to have a minimal rescue system on the root file system, and the rest of the OS on /usr.
              Fact: On Fedora the root directory contains ~450MB already. This hasn't been minimal since a long time, and due to today's complex storage and networking technologies it's unrealistic to ever reduce this again. In fact, since the introduction of initrds to Linux the initrd took over the role as minimal rescue system that requires only a working boot loader to be started, but not a full file system.
              And since when Fedora is a standad example for any one?
              You are talking about a in time forgotten distro..

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by hreindl View Post
                if you are an idiot not knowing about packaging guidelines you could do so, yes
                If he is a idiot, you are the greatest idiot..
                Does you know how a computer executes a binary, and Why?
                Have you even read about ELF headers, sometimes called 'magic numbers'???

                In ascii executable files the "ELF header" is the Shebang moron..
                I think you need to get out of your MS Windows world..

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                  FYI, add ".sh" to the name of your shell script (i.e. myscript.sh ) and you can do without a shebang entirely. The future is now old man (not really a new thing).
                  He is right...the ascii files the magic number or equivalent to a ELF header is the shebang..
                  The Ms Windows guys are the ones that execute files by extension..

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by swagg_boi View Post

                    I tried this with and without the ".sh" extension and it worked both ways... I assumed the file extension would be strictly cosmetic but apparently the shebang is too. I've been using "/usr/bin/env perl" for Perl scripts so I might just start doing "/usr/bin/env sh" on my shell scripts just to be extra special
                    What distro? Here on OpenSUSE I can't run a script without the .sh extension (or without a shebang of course)

                    "/usr/bin/env xx" is actually the portable way to do a shebang as it relies on using the program set in PATH, and not on specific physical place of the shell/interpreter in the system, but I guess it's also what is done by default when no shebang is specified.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post

                      What distro? Here on OpenSUSE I can't run a script without the .sh extension (or without a shebang of course)

                      "/usr/bin/env xx" is actually the portable way to do a shebang as it relies on using the program set in PATH, and not on specific physical place of the shell/interpreter in the system, but I guess it's also what is done by default when no shebang is specified.
                      Tested this procedure on both Slackware 14.2 and Fedora 29 just now for a sanity check https://pastebin.com/GELHu3Ud

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X