Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 19:43 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > All things considered, I have no immediate plan to push for deprecating > a standalone /usr. Thanks for going back. However, if you think this debate is going to come back later, maybe we could ensure that we can remove this support later. This starts by encouraging people to use alternate solutions when possible, so that we don’t hit again the “I have setups that do this” issue in a few years. Discouraging the use of a separate /usr should start by removing the explicit option to mount a partition to /usr in the installer. You could still specify it by hand, but that would imply knowing what you’re doing. > Some of the arguments mentioned in favour of a standalone /usr are: > - NFS: but it's still unclear exactly how this is managed in practice > (apparently it requires much handwaving), and there are alternatives > like an unionfs or really stateless clients which are probably simpler > and better Indeed, if you want /usr on NFS, you also want / on NFS. Maybe those interested in such setups could write a package that makes this easier, but everything is already here. > - LVM and/or RAID: no real reason nowadays to not use these for the root > - mounting it read only: some people obviously like this, but it's > hardly something irreplaceable Again, if people want all of this for /usr, they also want it for /. Maybe the policy could make clear that any package not working with a read-only / is RC? > - dmcrypt: not crypting /usr is just an optimization. E.g. on my laptop > I decided to crypt only /home, and use symlinks for the few files in > /etc which contain sensitive information, YMMV. I’m the only one who quoted it, and I already find this is a minor use case. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=