The motivation to get Debian systems to converge towards such a scheme is vastly documented elsewhere ([FDO's TheCaseForTheUsrMerge][0], [wiki.d.o UsrMerge][1]) but can be summarized as the following points:
* having separate `/` and `/usr` filesystems has been useful in the past for booting without initramfs onto a minimal root filesystem that carried just enough to mount the `/usr` filesystem later in the boot process. Given the evolution of physical hosts' capabilities, initramfs'es have been default in Debian (and elsewhere) for a long time, and most systems no longer have an intermediate state during boot in which they have only `/`, but not `/usr`, mounted. Booting hosts through that intermediate state is not systematically tested in Debian anymore.
-* another use-case is to be able to share an identical `/usr` over a network link; hence booting an initramfs, mounting a local `/`, then mounting `/usr` over the network. It seems that an initramfs with everything needed to mount a filesystem over a network link directly actually has a smaller footprint.
+* another use-case is to share system files from `/usr` between hosts (over a network link) or containers (locally) which use different data or configuration. Having all software under `/usr` (instead of spread between `/` and `/usr`) makes the centralized update and the sharing easier.
* the packaging infrastructure to install files outside of `/usr` is not standard and represents technical debt:
* given its status as remnant "folklore", the distinction between what _needs_ to be shipped in `/` and what can stay in `/usr` is often interpreted arbitrarily;
* allowing shipment of identically-named libraries or binaries in different paths can confuse common understanding of paths precedence.
+[0]: https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/
+[1]: https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge
+
The arguments against moving the base directories' scheme towards "merged `/usr`" are as follows:
* there's no gain in disrupting something that is not inherently broken;
-* `/{bin,sbin,lib*}/` → `/usr/{bin,sbin,lib*}/` symlinks create confusing views of the system (`/bin/cat` and `/usr/bin/cat` are the same file), and dpkg doesn't support this situation cleanly [#134758](https://bugs.debian.org/134758).
-
-[0]: https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/
-[1]: https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge
+* `/{bin,sbin,lib*}/` → `/usr/{bin,sbin,lib*}/` symlinks create confusing views of the system (`/bin/cat` and `/usr/bin/cat` are the same file), and dpkg doesn't support this situation cleanly: [#134758](https://bugs.debian.org/134758).
+* it is possible for distributions to converge towards having all system files in `/usr` in finite time instead of shortcutting this migration with `/{bin,sbin,lib*}/` → `/usr/{bin,sbin,lib*}/` symlinks.
The compatibility symbolic links `/lib` → `/usr/lib` and `/lib64` → `/usr/lib64` are required by the various CPUs' platform ABIs (for example i386 requires `/lib/ld-linux.so.2` to resolve to glibc's `ld.so`, and amd64 requires `/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2`) so there are no plans to remove them altogether. Similarly, removing `/bin` is not under consideration because it would break the assumption that `/bin/sh` exists, and removing `/sbin` would break the assumption that `/sbin/fsck.*` and `/sbin/mount.*` exist.
projects / debian-ctte.git / blobdiff