Re: Red Hat is moving from / to /usr/
Darren Salt <email@example.com> writes:
> I demand that Stephan Seitz may or may not have written...
>> On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 11:34:34AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>> Actually, Red Hat's goal *is* to support a separate /usr, they just want
>>> to have the initramfs mount it.
>> But as was seen in the last discussion, not everyone *has* an initramfs,
>> because it is not needed in many cases or sometimes even not supported on
>> the platform.
> On any box for which I've built a kernel, there's no initramfs and (except in
> one case â?? netbook) there's a separate /usr. I'd quite like to keep it this
To be honest most systems will have /usr localy and mounting it is no
problem at all. So even with moving stuff from / to /usr it should not
be a problem for them to mount /usr verry early during boot and have
stuff keep working.
I don't think anyone is considering moving /bin/mount just jet.
> / (without /usr) is often enough for rescue purposes (and if it isn't, it's
> enough to get /usr mounted). And if / is broken, then you have larger
> problems anyway.
> This mount-/usr/-in-initramfs looks to me like a means of reducing choice.
Or as a way to keep choices without complicating the standard case. If
you do want to have a /usr mounted as NFS4 over wlan then you need an
initramfs. If you have it as local partition then you don't. Consider it
from that point of view.
I'm still not for moving / to /usr but lets say I am less opposed now
than I was at the initial mail. If it "breaks" less than 1% of setups
and they need to use an initramfs to keep working then that is probably
ok. Or another process that moves things to the / filesystem on a need
by need basis. It MUST keep working though. Requiring that people
repartition is no an option.