Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Fedora 17 Moves Forward With Unified File-System

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,914

    Default Fedora 17 Moves Forward With Unified File-System

    Phoronix: Fedora 17 Moves Forward With Unified File-System

    Fedora 17 is moving forward with plans whereby the entire base operating system will live within /usr by condensing several common directories that have been long-standing to Linux distributions...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA0OTY

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Why move / -> /usr? Why not /usr -> / with /usr becoming a symlink to /?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquous View Post
    Why move / -> /usr? Why not /usr -> / with /usr becoming a symlink to /?
    Agreed. +1

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquous View Post
    Why move / -> /usr? Why not /usr -> / with /usr becoming a symlink to /?
    Because /usr includes a lot of folders that aren't in /.

    /usr/games
    /usr/libexec
    /usr/local
    /usr/share
    /usr/src
    /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

    etc

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    45

    Default

    src, share, local, and include are the normal ones that I see, not sure about games and libexec. In any event, do you spend a lot of time in / where a few extra directories would really bother you? Now that the stuff in /usr will only be in /usr, the grouping will be pretty arbitrary compared to what's sitting directly in /.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by roland View Post
    src, share, local, and include are the normal ones that I see, not sure about games and libexec. In any event, do you spend a lot of time in / where a few extra directories would really bother you? Now that the stuff in /usr will only be in /usr, the grouping will be pretty arbitrary compared to what's sitting directly in /.
    That's not the point. The point is that the directories in / that are being merged into /usr already exist in /usr.

    The same is not true in the other direction -- as I just showed.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    15

    Default

    The unified file-system is a good idea and a step into the right direction and I'm looking forward to see the change in a lot more distributions.
    Btw., does someone know what happened to gobolinux? Unfortunately the project seems to be dead. While their file-system structure was certainly controversial, it was a consequent and interesting re-layout imho.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    446

    Default

    I think the goal is simply to make /[s]bin and /usr/[s]bin equivalent. You could achieve the same by moving the folders from /usr to /, but you would still need symlinks for compatibility (thus, /usr would remain), so there's really no point.

    Also, see the page linked in the article:

    Myth #11: Instead of merging / into /usr it would make a lot more sense to merge /usr into /.

    Fact: This would make the separation between vendor-supplied OS resources and machine-specific even worse, thus making OS snapshots and network/container sharing of it much harder and non-atomic, and clutter the root file system with a multitude of new directories.
    Last edited by Nobu; 01-27-2012 at 03:47 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    580

    Default

    The idea is you could mount an entire new distro onto /usr very easily or use snapshotting from btrfs to allow easier rollbacks

    If you read the arguments for this you'll see that it's very thought out

    http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Soft...ForTheUsrMerge

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Myth #11: Instead of merging / into /usr it would make a lot more sense to merge /usr into /.
    Fact: This would make the separation between vendor-supplied OS resources and machine-specific even worse, thus making OS snapshots and network/container sharing of it much harder and non-atomic, and clutter the root file system with a multitude of new directories.
    I suggest that people at least TRY to read the FAQ.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •