Re: [dev] app locations?

From: Ali H. Fardan <>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:24:06 +0300

On 2016-10-17 19:19, wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 07:03:59PM +0300, Ali H. Fardan wrote:
>> /bin - for binaries that come with the system
> So they never get maintained with a package manager? Sounds like a
> really weird way of doing things. If you bootstrap with a tarball, the
> distinction becomes meaningless once you've updated packages with a
> package manager.

Throw away your Linux-ish idea of "everything is a package", and take a
look at BSD systems, they provide tarballs for updating your system,
which are maintain by the mainstream distribution, and are not under the
risk of breaking because of a silly package manager mistake.

> Some of us currently use package managers that bootstrap the system
> though.

I have nothing against this, but I prefer the BSD way of doing it.

>> /usr/local/bin - is for binaries installed by the user without using
>> the
>> package manager
> So /local/bin now?

Yes, if you got rid of /usr

>> */sbin - is nonsense
> Details? Do you mean because it should be root:root 700, but everybody
> has it in their $PATH anyway? Or do you mean because permissions on the
> binaries themselves is good enough? Or because protections on the
> resources accessed by the binaries is good enough? Or because you just
> don't like splitting things into four?

because of the last reason, splitting binaries to /sbin adds complexity,
which is unnecessary
Received on Mon Oct 17 2016 - 18:24:06 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Oct 17 2016 - 18:36:11 CEST