Re: Missing braille durring boot
Odd Martin Baanrud <martin@la5ska.net> writes:
> Hello Mario,
>
> At 18:23 05.03.2009, you wrote:
>
>> Change to /etc/rcS.d and invoke the following command: "mv S25brltty
>> S38brltty"
>
> Done that, and BRLTTY now starts durring boot.
Good.
>>These days, I'd rather recommend having /usr on the root partition,
>
> I don't agree.
> Havving separate partitions for different parts of the directory tree
> makes it much easier to get a complete overview of space usage, etc.
> Also, it makes things easier if something happends with the physical
> hard drive.
I once also was of the school of thought you present above,
but in my 10 year linux user career, I haven't had a single incident
where a separation of /usr into a separate partition did help/save me.
However, I've had numberous occasions where it actually created problems.
Your mileage may vary of course.
>>it makes things actually simpler while the separation of /usr into
>>a different partition/VLM volume usually doesn't gain you so much IMO.
>
> Well, accessibility shouldn't depend on how a user like to partition a
> hard drive.
You have a point here of course.
> Btw, this was not a problem in Etch.
I know. The actual problem is that BRLTTY now links against
three libraries in /usr/lib. While libstdc++ is probably a bug, and libgpm
could be avoided, libicu is something we really want to link against since
BRLTTY now has Unicode support. Maybe we should try to convince
ICU upstream to move it into /lib?
> In all of my Etch installations, with /usr on a separate partition,
> BRLTTY starts just out of the box.
Because I put some extra effort into avoiding linking against libraries
in /usr during the Etch release. Apparently, I let this slip
for Lenny. So, I am the one to blame, go ahead.
--
CYa,
⡍⠁⠗⠊⠕ | Debian Developer <URL:http://debian.org/>
.''`. | Get my public key via finger mlang/key@db.debian.org
: :' : | 1024D/7FC1A0854909BCCDBE6C102DDFFC022A6B113E44
`. `'
`- <URL:http://delysid.org/> <URL:http://www.staff.tugraz.at/mlang/>
Reply to: