[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: from / to /usr/: a summary

Darren Salt <linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk> writes:

> I demand that Ben Hutchings may or may not have written...
>> On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 20:42 +0000, Philip Hands wrote:
>> We're now debating what, if any, effort we should make to continue to
>> support running init scripts without /usr mounted.  There is also
>> discussion of whether separate / and /usr partitions should be supported or
>> deprecated, but I think that's quite separate.
> If /usr gets mounted earlier, fine. I'm happy if / can be used without
> needing /usr for basic recovery.
> I fully intend to continue with lilo, separate /usr and no initramfs/initrd.
> I *may* decide to stop using a separate /usr should I need to replace
> hardware â?? but probably not before then.
> I will NOT use an initramfs just to have /usr mounted early enough.

Hopfully the consensus will be, and that is what it seems to be at the
moment, that a seperate /usr remains supported but the 0.1% crazy septups
will need to use initramfs or a similar mechanism to still be able to
mount /usr with just /.

So as long as you don't do something crazy like have /usr on nfs4 over
wireless that won't be a problem. Having an init script that mounts /usr
from a local partition is easy enough and only needs a tiny and
managable set of packages to be in /.


Reply to: