Re: RES: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec

[Brian May <bam@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Samuelson <peter@p12n.org> writes:

    Peter> [Thomas Bushnell BSG]
    >> Um:
    >> 
    >> /bin/mount foo:whatever /bin

I was considering commenting on this, I think if you want to start
going down this track it would be simpler to write/adapt a script that
automatically creates an initramfs.

This initramfs would not only initialise the network, but mount the
appropriate file, including /etc (non-shareable), /lib (shareable
except perhaps /lib/modules), /sbin, /bin, /proc, /dev. Some people
consider this approach cleaner as it doesn't require the kernel to do
the initialisation stuff that can be done is user land. It fact, it
wouldn't surprise me if the kernel NFS-root stuff is either obsolete
or planned to become obsolete, for this reason.

Also you automatically get updated files when you update the kernel,
and you don't have to mess around with the package system.

    Peter> That's a huge administrative hassle.  Not only do you have
    Peter> to figure out what programs and libraries /bin/mount
    Peter> depends on so you can make sure they're on your real root
    Peter> partition, but the packaging system doesn't - and shouldn't
    Peter> - do anything to help you keep the two copies of /bin in
    Peter> sync.

Not to mention the extra mess (at least IMHO) of mounting two copies
of /bin. Sure, it is possible though. I am not sure what the point
would be.

    Peter> You would put up with all *that* for a 6-megabyte savings
    Peter> on your root filesystem?

It would be more then 6 megabyte savings on the root file-system if
/usr was moved to /. That was the original point I responded to.
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>