The strangeness called `sbin'

[Ulrich Spörlein]

On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 10:29:22 +0100, Ed Schouten wrote:
> Hi Doug,
> 
> * Doug Barton <dougb at FreeBSD.org>, 20111113 23:57:
> > If we're going to talk about making a change that's actually worth
> > making, let's just move everything into / and get rid of /usr
> > altogether. It served its purpose back when it came into being, but with
> > modern disk sizes and the (unfortunate) prevalence of the "one big /"
> > layout model, it's time in the sun is long past.
> 
> Now that I think of it, it may be possible to sort of combine this with
> my approach in a way that it doesn't break POLA for existing users. What
> if we leave everything in the tree alone, but only modify the code, so
> that any new installations on empty directory structures use the
> following symlinks:
> 
> - /sbin -> /bin
> - /usr/bin -> /bin
> - /usr/games -> /bin
> - /usr/lib -> /lib
> - /usr/sbin -> /bin

Yes please, although it'll never happen :(

Why can't we have all the base system in /bin, /lib, /etc with the usual
/usr/src
/usr/ports
/usr/home
/usr/compat

and the kicker: have all ports install into /usr/bin and /usr/lib (yes,
you read that right!)

I know that /usr doesn't really stand for "user", so having these
contain the third party apps that the user installed is a bit of a
stretch, but it wouldn't be the first time in history that something
changed its original meaning.

(I left /usr/share and /usr/include as an exercise for the reader.)

> But now the question remains how we should change the default
> partitioning. I think default installations place home directories in
> /usr/home, with a symlink from /home. Should they now be placed in
> /usr/local/home?

No please don't, any serious installations have their own /home
partition anyway. Also in the past, deleting /usr/local only meant you
lost all installed ports and /usr/local/etc -- something you usually can
easily recover from. Not so if /usr/local/home is where your real data
lies.

Cheers,
Uli