Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:48:13 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, mike@karels.net, Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com>, arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The strangeness called `sbin' Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1111141745001.94325@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <201111140802.13355.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201111140101.pAE11XEa067064@mail.karels.net> <201111140802.13355.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, John Baldwin wrote: > On Sunday, November 13, 2011 8:01:33 pm Mike Karels wrote: >> I have to agree with Doug. If the directories were unified and we were >> proposing splitting them based on efficiency, I would say it is not worth >> doing. However, the directories are separate now, and I don't see >> sufficient benefit from combining them. fwiw, I think at least 90% of the >> users at work do not have /sbin and /usr/sbin in their paths now, and they >> do not need them. (Yes, there are still multi-user systems, and not >> everyone is a sysadmin.) >> >> I think this is a solution in search of a problem. > > I agree. The upheaval and drama doesn't seem to be worth the change. Ditto. I agree with Ed that it is more aesthetically pleasing and in keeping with the actual design principles we have, but it would be quite disruptive for downstream users. Especially if the source tree is rearranged, since not all revision control systems (or import methods) take kindly to large-scale renaming of subtrees with substantial patches. Such barriers should only be introduced where there's a compelling reason to do so, and I don't see that for this, even if it would fall neatly on the pile of "If we had to do it all over again, we'd do it X way". Robert
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1111141745001.94325>