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

Re: from / to /usr/: a summary

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:17:05 +0100, Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:
> * Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> schrieb:
> > On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Tanguy Ortolo <tanguy+debian@ortolo.eu> wrote:
> > > I tend to agree. At least, this is how I interpret the FHS, and it seems
> > > appropriate to me. Although it may not be useful in most cases, I do not
> > > see it as harmful.
> > 
> > The harm is if it takes us extra development time because other distributions 
> > don't support it, provide configuration options for it, or test it.
> Hmm, AFAIK Gentoo still is FHS compliant in this regard. Ubuntu too.
> No idea what SuSE does, but who really cares what these windows imitator
> jerks do ? ;-o
> > Things have changed a lot since the FSSTD first came out.
> True. But the need for quick and easy system maintenance remains.

It seems to me that the above exchange sums up the main thrusts of this

On one side we have people that wish to drop a requirement to have an
independently bootable root partition because that will save them
effort, and on the other side we have people that see that we're losing
a significant asset if we do that.

In reality, the folks on the status quo side probably only care about
their servers, and are quite happy to have their laptops slightly
restricted in the combinations that are possible, while the people
arguing for change just want some way to not be forced to do the extra
work when it seems mostly pointless.

Could we not have a package that checks if a system is going to be
unbootable under the circumstances in question (i.e. it has /usr on
nfs4, or whatever) and refuse to install on such a system, lets call
that package 'early-boot-usr'.

Then for the people that are having to put in extra effort into
packaging things that want to assume that /usr is there from early boot,
they just need to depend on early-boot-usr.

I have a feeling that most of the people that care about the separation
of / and /usr only really care on systems that don't need the packages
that are going to have that dependency, and for the few overlaps that
there are, the effort would then be focused where it's needed.

Cheers, Phil.
|)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]    http://www.hands.com/
|-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.                    http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND

Attachment: pgp7XgLbFvaLO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: