Re: deprecating /usr as a standalone filesystem?
Stefano Zacchiroli <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:10:54AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> > So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone
>> > /usr?
>> There had been lots of responses to that.
> Yes, the most repeated argument has been mount /usr via NFS.
> Unfortunately, nobody yet explained how do they update the resulting
> cluster of machines.
On the NFS server you install a full system in a chroot (or run it as
xen/kvm/... instace for maintainance).
On clients during boot you run
rsync -avPSHx --exclude-from=host-files server:chroot/ /
The host-files lists some files in /etc/ and /var and also /usr and
/home and other directories you NFS mount.
> Of course the problem is that if you update on the NFS server, then
> related /etc and /var files  will not get updated on the NFS client
> machines and you need to propagate changes there. I see as quite
> pointless to use "let's export /usr via NFS" as an argument, if Debian
> does not provide a way to make that setup tenable.
ACK. There is really not much point in having / local. It is easy
enough to use nfs-root and overlay a host specific /etc and
/var. People might just not be used to it.
Networking is not a good argument why /usr must be kept
seperate. Stick to the other reasons mentioned.
> ACK on your second clarification request, though.
>  Or anything else actually, given that maintainer scripts can
> affect basically all the filesystem.