Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Johnny Billquist <>
List: current-users
Date: 08/27/2002 16:33:56
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Robert Elz wrote:

>     Date:        Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:21:55 +0200 (CEST)
>     From:        Johnny Billquist <>
>     Message-ID:  <Pine.LNX.4.21.0208271512380.4775-100000@Tempo.Update.UU.SE>
>   | I don't think /rescue is such a brilliant solution as you obviously have
>   | decided it is.
> It doesn't need to be brilliant, just functional enough to be able
> to fix many of the problems that can occur (obviously it can't handle
> everything, a "newfs /dev/wd0a" (/) isn't likely to get undone that way.

No. And no other variant will undo a newfs either.
But I think that having to go to another init, run a different set of the
cusps, which possibly then might be very out of sync with the world, and
the confusion that probably will show up the day you really need to fix a
broken system is a good reason not to make this move.

When you have a broken system, things are bad enough as they are, without
adding yet another stone to the burden.

*That's why*.

>   | Eh? Not having a /lib is hardly recent. Or do you consider 20 years ago
>   | recent?
> 20 years ago was about 4.2bsd -- /lib still existed.
> /lib still existed in 4.3bsd, and in the myriad 4.3xyz releases.
> I didn't ever run a genuine pure 4.4, so I'm not sure whether it
> had gone from there or not, but that's much more recent than 20 years.

Hum. I guess I should dig out my backup of my 4.3 system now, but I'm
pretty sure I didn't see any /lib there. I didn't think it disappeared
between 4.2 and 4.3, but have to admit that I don't know for sure.

But yes, how recent isn't really the main point. Yes, at one time /lib did
exist. If you were arguing that we should move everything into /lib, and
remove /usr/lib, then I'd understand your point.
I don't think it's such a good idea to start spreading libraries
around. We've hardly managed to clean out non-libraries from /usr/lib (by
adding libdata and libexec), and we really should try to be simple,
consistent and comprehensible. Having both /lib and /usr/lib is not any of

And before you say anything, I think that /usr/lib is better than /lib,
since I thing that the root file system should contain relatively little

>   | This all started with a request that those who don't want this change be
>   | gived a way of not having it.
> What I have read has suggested that something like that might happen
> (though you'd have to compile for yourself to get it, what comes in the
> distributions won't be like that).

In a very limited way. I'll still get /lib unless I really go and start
digging into things myself, from the response so far.


Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                  ||  on a psychedelic trip
email:           ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol