Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
williamh pushing usr merge
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
saellaven
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 450

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:27 pm    Post subject: williamh pushing usr merge Reply with quote

From: William Hubbs Subject: usr merge wrote:


I thought that since the usr merge is coming up again, and since I lost
track of the message where it was brought up, I would open a
new thread to discuss it.

When it came up before, some were saying that the /usr merge violates
the fhs. I don't remember the specifics of what the claim was at the
time, (I'm sure someone will point it out if it is still a concern).

I don't think creating usr merged stages would be that difficult. I
think it would just be a matter of creating a new version of baselayout
that puts these symlinks in place:

/bin->usr/bin
/lib->usr/lib
/lib32->usr/lib32
/lib64->usr/lib64
/sbin->usr/bin
/usr/sbin->bin

Once that is in place in a new baselayout, I think portage's colission
detection would be able to catch files that had the same names and were
originally in different paths when building the new stages.

I put some thought also in how to nigrate live systems, and I'm not sure
what the best way to do that is. I wrote a script, which would do it in
theory, but I haven't tested because I only have one system and if
it breaks it the only way back would be to reinstall.

The script is attached.

Thoughts on any of this?


So, once again, we have williamh trying to push the systemd idiocy onto everyone using Gentoo. Like with the separate /usr push, I expect the Council to be lazy and just roll over again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 3912
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's actually great news. With his "vision" for openrc no longer squatting in those directories, we can much easier build a drop-in replacement that installs there.
_________________
Quantity is not quality.
overlay | runit-scripts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skiwarz
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 23 Feb 2014
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So, once again, we have williamh trying to push the systemd idiocy onto everyone using Gentoo. Like with the separate /usr push, I expect the Council to be lazy and just roll over again.

I haven't been following this at all, and I wonder if someone might be able to explain this issue to me. Or supply me with some informative reading materials? ie what systemd idiocy and separate /usr push?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
derk
Guru
Guru


Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 341
Location: St Thomas Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you want more info check the gentoo-dev mailing list archives.. for where this started.

To add to the questions to be asked are: how does this idea effect "system security", compartmentalization , protection from user errors, program usage restrictions- via directory permissions etc.

are we going to a non-directory based system .. everything in one pot.. really makes no sense to me.. how does this idea effect disk storage efficiency.

sure we have "historical artifacts" in the file system .. but really is it necessary to make these changes .. what is the real gain in value?

any other concerns .. ignoring system init choices specificly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ct85711
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 1044

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the only thing I see having everything in one folder, is to work around lazy programmers and to be easier to the Windows people. Though, I do forsee a larger performance hit for combining everything together, loss of security (i.e. users become more like admin users in windows that can do anything). Thinking to control security through pam or through ACL's is not a good idea. Anyone that's had to deal with the hassles of dealing with all the ACL's and permissions in a windows network, knows that it's a pain that never truely works properly. Specially when you end up having multiple different permission sets from a different source, and who knows which one is going to apply that instance (which may not be the same next time). A good example on windows, is user permissions on the local system and the ones from the network. Then you get my favorite, the Read only flag on files. On windows, the read only flag has effectively no meaning unless a program is designed to honor it (the filesystem does not care able that flag, so you can easily delete or modify the file even though it is read only).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yamakuzure
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1930
Location: Bardowick, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who said everything to go into one folder?

This is just to get rid of /{bin,lib,lib32,lib64,sbin} which all exist in /usr for ages and are mainly filled there.
The only reason for the stuff in the root folders is (and ever was) to make tools available that are needed before /usr comes online.

So the only people who would have a problem with this are those who want both: A separate usr partition and booting without an initrd.

The only thing that puzzles me is the merge of the sbin folders into /usr/bin. I do not like that one.

saellaven wrote:
(...)push the systemd idiocy (...)
The usr merge has nothing to do with and was not invented by the systemd devs. You can not blame *everything* on them, mkay?
Although there is a big article on TheCaseForTheUsrMerge at freedesktop.org, it clearly states:
Quote:
Fedora (and other distributions) have finished work on getting rid of the separation of /bin and /usr/bin, as well as /sbin and /usr/sbin, /lib and /usr/lib, and /lib64 and /usr/lib64. All files from the directories in / will be merged into their respective counterparts in /usr, and symlinks for the old directories will be created instead.
And this article is actually based on an earlier Fedora article on the usr move.
_________________
systemd - Progress through complexity
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mv
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 5479

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ct85711 wrote:
hough, I do forsee a larger performance hit for combining everything together, loss of security

The merge has some pros and cons, but these are neither.
Concerning performance, there might even be a (very microscopic!) improvement by having $PATH and $LDPATH shrunk by one or two entries.
Security-wise there is no change at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

skiwarz wrote:
I haven't been following this at all, and I wonder if someone might be able to explain this issue to me. Or supply me with some informative reading materials? ie what systemd idiocy and separate /usr push?

skiwarz ... there are various threads (here and on the dev mailing list) where this has been discussed, some of these are long (ie, the politics of systemd and the politics of systemd part 2) and unfocused, so you would need to spend some time to find specific mention, unforutunately the terms "usr merge" would match too many posts to make a more specific search useful. As for the mailing list this thread from a few years back might prove an easier starting point.

HTH & best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yamakuzure wrote:
The only reason for the stuff in the root folders is (and ever was) to make tools available that are needed before /usr comes online.

Yamakuzure ... that is only partially true, the FHS has /bin and /sbin as "command[s ] that need to be available in single user mode", there is a subtle difference between a filesystem being available and runlevel 1 (with the argument being made that such a requirement is no longer necessary due to initramfs being the "new root"). So, while /usr being unavailable is one thing (it may or may not be ... depending on the specific setup) there is a reason for having such a distinction, and shifting single user mode into the initramfs doesn't alter that, we've kept the separation because /{s,}bin functioned that way ... until, that is, certain requirements started to ignore the fact (and then claimed such a setup was "broken"). It's not broken, it became broken by design. The claimed solution effectively shifts the blame, and claims that /{s,}bin serves no functional purpose, its historical baggage, etc, etc, which ignores the fact that form follows function, and while function changes (ie, the availability of initramfs) there is little reason that such a separation shouldn't be maintained (to support the wider use case) ... other than the fact that those now claiming its necessity necessitated it.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 4765
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yamakuzure wrote:
Who said everything to go into one folder?

This is just to get rid of /{bin,lib,lib32,lib64,sbin} which all exist in /usr for ages and are mainly filled there.
The only reason for the stuff in the root folders is (and ever was) to make tools available that are needed before /usr comes online.

So the only people who would have a problem with this are those who want both: A separate usr partition and booting without an initrd.

The only thing that puzzles me is the merge of the sbin folders into /usr/bin. I do not like that one.

saellaven wrote:
(...)push the systemd idiocy (...)
The usr merge has nothing to do with and was not invented by the systemd devs. You can not blame *everything* on them, mkay?
Although there is a big article on TheCaseForTheUsrMerge at freedesktop.org, it clearly states:
Quote:
Fedora (and other distributions) have finished work on getting rid of the separation of /bin and /usr/bin, as well as /sbin and /usr/sbin, /lib and /usr/lib, and /lib64 and /usr/lib64. All files from the directories in / will be merged into their respective counterparts in /usr, and symlinks for the old directories will be created instead.
And this article is actually based on an earlier Fedora article on the usr move.


Exactly. there is a loose justification as to why /usr came about in UNIX as was associated with small disks.
merging the bin,lib etc is a by and by (iirc Arch have already done that
merging sbin into bin is a different story altogether.

the benefit of /bin, /sbin separation from /usr/bin and /usr/sbin is down to /lib/ and /usr/lib and if you have a separate /usr partition. I don't so it's moot BUT those that do...
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roman_Gruber
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 03 Oct 2006
Posts: 3575
Location: Austro Bavaria

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

no idea what the fhs says

but

Quote:
/sbin->usr/bin
/usr/sbin->bin


will cause a headache, also the moved lib directories

considering none cares for the file hiearchay standard, its whatever at the end of the day. i used so many different distros over past 20 years and none had the same spots for hte same stuff. Not in the past and not these days. Everyone invents the wheel again.

I am against moving

lib, sbin and bin as those were for a very long time in /
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
derk
Guru
Guru


Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 341
Location: St Thomas Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mmm after having read the articles linked earlier .. including the Fedora article on the usr move.

.. where do the kernel modules get stored .. in such a way so that usr " in theory" could be network shared and each cpu have it's own kernel config .. and cache of installed modules ..

moving /lib into /usr/lib blows up that separation .. does every cpu now need to be the same ..

or do we move kernel modules into /etc or /var or /var/lib ..how does fedora do that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

derk wrote:
.. where do the kernel modules get stored .. in such a way so that usr " in theory" could be network shared and each cpu have it's own kernel config .. and cache of installed modules ..

derk ... when down the line, and encountering such questions, you simply declare modules "broken" and insist that such things should be in the initramfs, handled via moduletmpfs, or etc, etc ... there are any number of ways to "fix" the problem, once you understand it properly.

As for "in theory", we've been doing it for years, if you want thin clients then use LTSP ... I don't see the reason why every install somehow needs to have this capability by default, or how that particular argument makes much sense.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 5508

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The point of having /sbin symlink is to force everyone to use the same tools.

If you put openrc into /usr/sbin instead of /sbin: it doesn't make any difference at first, but that's a big one.
- when you boot a non diskless client using /usr from a server, the server tools will be magically export to the client : if server have /usr/sbin/openrc, client could use it, but if client use another init, it will not be able to use openrc anyway, so it have access to a tool it have no use for.
- worst: when your client boot, it use its /usr/sbin that of course have openrc as it use it, then it mount /usr from the server that is using systemd, and all openrc tools are now gone! it lost its own control of its system: it couldn't anymore do any "/etc/init.d/whatever restart/stop/start" because it need a /usr/sbin/openrc that is no more usable.

So the thin (that are just client with a tiny disk) clients will have no choice than using the same init (and tools) as their server.
After the usr move, the next step will be "force anyone to install their critical tools into /usr/sbin instead of /sbin" with the argument that "one day, we will remove the /sbin symlink, all tools should be in /usr/sbin".

What a nice world where all clients must use systemd because systemd was use to boot that server, all clients must use bash because server is using bash...

I wonder if fedora plan to offer some /usr as cloud service or something like ltsp...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 4556
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea, is off their head AFAIC.

Next.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 4556
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
there is a loose justification as to why /usr came about in UNIX as was associated with small disks.

That's not a "justification" but merely how it first came about; the reasons for separate partitions or devices being useful to admins have been gone over before. (And if you don't get them, don't worry about it: just leave well enough alone.)

As for the "intricate dependencies between /usr and /lib" that does not apply to anyone who followed the kool-aid advice and merged /usr to root, or installed with one big partition.

So it's a complete non-issue already, and this does not benefit Gentoo users in any way. It simply makes Gentoo less flexible.

As khayyam pointed out, the "network, zomg" cases have already been addressed in reality, from decades ago.

If someone can point to multiple threads from real administrators, across mailing-lists, asking for someone to come in and force them to squash everything into one bindir, then maybe there'd be something to talk about.

As it is, it's just the simplistic approach of neophytes who don't realise how incompetent they are, forced upon everyone else "because RedHat."
This is just power-play on RedHat's part, to establish the precedent that what they say goes (however dumbass it may be) across GNU/Linux.

No thanks; not on our machines.

Linux is about choice.
Not some crappy "vision" of how we can all pay RedHat for our own work: the antithesis of the GPL.

RedHat needs to get back into its box (and simply earn from support.) No company, nor even the whole system of corporate power, is more important than our community. Plenty of companies have fallen foul of their greed before; if RedHat does not want to end up as this decades's SCO, it should rein itself in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
saellaven
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 450

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yamakuzure wrote:
Who said everything to go into one folder?

This is just to get rid of /{bin,lib,lib32,lib64,sbin} which all exist in /usr for ages and are mainly filled there.
The only reason for the stuff in the root folders is (and ever was) to make tools available that are needed before /usr comes online.

So the only people who would have a problem with this are those who want both: A separate usr partition and booting without an initrd.


It's not just those of us that use a separate /usr and don't want an initrd.

I expect / (excluding /usr) to house anything I might need to boot into single user mode to repair my system, without the full weight of all the other cruft that comes in /usr. Unless you rebuild your initrd every time you update a variety of system tools (not just the kernel/modules, but things like gcc/glibc (see the ABI change with 5.x), e2fsprogs, coreutils, etc), you risk having a non-bootable system.

I'm not dependent on an initrd and I can have a minimal / on a separate disk, flash drive, etc that can get a system back up and repaired, even if the root disk is unbootable. It also means being able to have a thin clients that can mount a consistent, shared /usr from over the network with anything else I want.

It's incredibly handy... and just because some newcomers don't see the benefit doesn't mean it's a bad idea that needs to be done away with (see also network transparency and wayland).


Quote:

saellaven wrote:
(...)push the systemd idiocy (...)
The usr merge has nothing to do with and was not invented by the systemd devs. You can not blame *everything* on them, mkay?
Although there is a big article on TheCaseForTheUsrMerge at freedesktop.org, it clearly states:
Quote:
Fedora (and other distributions) have finished work on getting rid of the separation of /bin and /usr/bin, as well as /sbin and /usr/sbin, /lib and /usr/lib, and /lib64 and /usr/lib64. All files from the directories in / will be merged into their respective counterparts in /usr, and symlinks for the old directories will be created instead.
And this article is actually based on an earlier Fedora article on the usr move.


From the Fedora page
Quote:

Owner

Name: Harald Hoyer
Email: harald@redhat.com
Name: Kay Sievers
Email: kay@redhat.com


Remind me again who the key developers of systemd are... I'll give you a hint - if you go to wikipedia, check who the second and third original authors listed are.

So yes, I will blame the systemd devs... as they're the ones that want to turn linux into Windows. the user merge is their way of making linux into c:\windows.

You'll also note that it is the systemd crew of gentoo devs that pushed the mandatory initramfs for a separate /usr onto gentoo and are now pushing the usr merge again, just as I said they would a few years ago when williamh conned them into dropping official support for the separate /usr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2756
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh boy, what's next running as root all the time.
If I wanted to run windows, I would run windows.
Not some morons version of linux as windows.

I've never considered stupidity a handicap, but I may have to rethink that given what I'm seeing from the gentoo dev leaders.

One does have to wonder just how much is RH paying people like WH to ruin a distro.
That's the only reason I can see for some of the outright idiocy being proposed.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 4.4.6-zen, glibc-2.21, gcc-4.9.4, eudev
xorg-server-1.18.4 w/mesa-13.0.2, openbox, nouveau and radeon, oss4(2011)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tld
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1092

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

saellaven wrote:
It's not just those of us that use a separate /usr and don't want an initrd.
A-men to that. I've been running Gentoo for 12 years and have never had an initrd on any of my systems. I see it as a kludgy complication that tends to be needed on binary distros...yet another reason I use Gentoo in the first place. What exactly is the deal with WilliamH anyway? I get the impression that no serious Gentoo user agrees with any of his crap yet he seems to remain in a position to cause trouble. There are plenty of distros out there now for people that want Windows...I wish he'd get the hell away from Gentoo and go to one of those.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
depontius
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 3138

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why don't we put up a poll about the whole /usr merge thing?

I know quite a few of us here don't like the idea, but are we just a concentration of curmudgeons? Maybe, maybe not. But at any rate, it seems pretty well proven that we can't send a message to WilliamH, perhaps a poll could.

Is there any way a /usr merge could be made optional, say a USE flag or other portage directive?

If pressed hard, perhaps I don't mind merging /bin and /usr/bin - THAT badly, because I've read enough LKML to understand that to some, initrd is the new /. But merging sbin content into bin is just not a good idea at all, and to me that is a bigger mistake than the /usr mess.
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 4765
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

depontius wrote:
Why don't we put up a poll about the whole /usr merge thing?

I know quite a few of us here don't like the idea, but are we just a concentration of curmudgeons? Maybe, maybe not. But at any rate, it seems pretty well proven that we can't send a message to WilliamH, perhaps a poll could.

Is there any way a /usr merge could be made optional, say a USE flag or other portage directive?

If pressed hard, perhaps I don't mind merging /bin and /usr/bin - THAT badly, because I've read enough LKML to understand that to some, initrd is the new /. But merging sbin content into bin is just not a good idea at all, and to me that is a bigger mistake than the /usr mess.
keeping the sbin's out of the discussion for now as that is quite derp...
if you merge /bin into /usr/bin you might as well merge /lib{,32,64} into /usr/lib{,32,64}

The only argument for the (gentoo) merge appears to be around portage collision... but if a file resides in /bin and a file by the same name resides in /usr/bin there is no collision...
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2756
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems as if WH is hell bent on destroying gentoo, at least as it has existed for quite some time.

The real question is will the trustees to allow people like WH to destroy it.

For me, I can always choose to roll my own, it won't be the first time.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 4.4.6-zen, glibc-2.21, gcc-4.9.4, eudev
xorg-server-1.18.4 w/mesa-13.0.2, openbox, nouveau and radeon, oss4(2011)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 4894

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

depontius wrote:
Why don't we put up a poll about the whole /usr merge thing?

depontius ... before doing this shouldn't we insist that the case *for* present the reasons why this is a good idea? I'm not seeing that, so any poll would, in my mind, circumvent such a necessary presentation of fact.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
depontius
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 3138

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
depontius wrote:
Why don't we put up a poll about the whole /usr merge thing?

depontius ... before doing this shouldn't we insist that the case *for* present the reasons why this is a good idea? I'm not seeing that, so any poll would, in my mind, circumvent such a necessary presentation of fact.

best ... khay


Won't disagree, but from what I can see, there is no mechanism for that insistence.

As a plain-old Gentoo user, I am aware of:
- these forums
- bugzilla
- some sort of mailing list, though I've only looked at links and never participated
- users
- developers
- forum moderaters
- package owners
- the "gentoo council", though that's something off in the grey clouds

I really don't know how this beast called Gentoo is governed, and I suspect most in the forums know less than me.

Is there a HowTo participate?
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony0945
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 1536
Location: Illinois, USA

PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

depontius wrote:
As a plain-old Gentoo user, I am aware of:
- these forums
- bugzilla
- some sort of mailing list, though I've only looked at links and never participated
- users
- developers
- forum moderaters
- package owners
- the "gentoo council", though that's something off in the grey clouds

I really don't know how this beast called Gentoo is governed, and I suspect most in the forums know less than me.

I certainly know less. I didn't even know about the mailing list!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum