Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?")

[Chris Murphy]

On Mar 24, 2014, at 6:45 AM, lee <lee at yun.yagibdah.de> wrote:

> Suvayu Ali <fatkasuvayu+linux at gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:56:13PM +0100, lee wrote:
>>> 
>>> There`s nothing weird or exotic about it.  I`ve always had /usr on its
>>> own partition until the F17 installer refused that, which it shouldn`t
>>> have.
>> 
>> I'm sorry but the installer denying /usr on its own partition on F17 is
>> the right thing to do.  I believe F17 introduced something called
>> usr-move, meaning all the binaries in /bin /sbin are actually
>> hardlinks/symlinks to /usr/bin and /usr/sbin.  I believe this was a
>> multi-distribution effort.  In such a configuration, there is no
>> justification or gain of putting it in a separate partition, on top of
>> that the booting process becomes quite complicated.
> 
> /usr belongs on it`s own partition.  

As if no one has ever said that before, and as if it convinced even one thinking person to change their mind. 

Fedora has never defaulted to separate /usr partition. It's been two years since this was decided. That you're still experiencing cognitive dissonance over this ancient long ago resolve topic is your problem, not anyone else's.

> And last time I looked, it would
> not be compliant with the FHS not to have what is needed in /bin and
> /sbin but to use symlinks instead.

bin lib lib64 are symlinks to their locations in /usr.


Chris Murphy