I brought up a discussion point and I would like to respond with some clarification. I am aware of the /bin and /usr/bin merge using the softlink.
Here is my concern. When I review the downloads for Debian’s “apt-get install”, Redhat’s “dnf install” or Arch’s “pacman -S” and Suse’s “zypper in” (I run 3 other distros along side Clear Linux, I noted that these distros install applications directly to /bin.
It got me thinking that there are thousands of installation files which get installed directly to /bin. Would you want to spend a few years doing conversions and testing of changes to redirect these programs to install to /usr/local/bin? I have some issues with using that /usr/local/bin due to the way I do my own software installations – I put my own software directly to /usr/local/bin. If I needed to do a reinstallation, of Clear Linux, do I wipe that directory clean? That would also wipeout my own installed programs.
Now I will have to rethink about where to install my own software. One thought I had was to create a /local/bin (no /usr as prefix) and maintain /local/bin or alternately a /home/bin and have one or the other added into the PATH statement. Essentially, I would treat /local/bin or /home/bin as a partition to be preserved, should a major re installation be required.
There is also the concern about libraries, config files and scripts. I only mentioned the executables, without mentioning the libraries. Should there be a /usr/local/lib? What about config files?
My posting was to consider migration to a bundle/container based Linux distribution.
Leslie (just completed 60 years in IT).