Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Fedora 17 Moves Forward With Unified File-System

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote 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

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote 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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote 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.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,008

    Default 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.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote 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/

Posting Permissions

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