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

Re: from / to /usr/: a summary

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:25:12 +0100, md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> On Dec 26, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
> > On 12/22/2011 07:19 PM, Philip Hands wrote:
> > > I'm still yet to understand the significant upsides of this proposal
> > So far, the only upside that has been written here, if I understand
> > well, is less patches for upstream udev, which is important since we
> > don't have enough people to work on alternatives/fork/patches.
> No, it's not about "patches". More and more things just need /usr at 
> boot time, and the solution is to mount it in the initramfs.

I presume that you mean that they need /usr early enough in the boot
that we'll not have a chance to mount it as we do now because of entangled

Perhaps you could spell out some examples of what you mean, so people
can judge whether they share your perception.

> The only alternative would be to keep moving stuff from /usr to /, which 
> kind of defeats its purpose.

Quite.  Doing that would certainly not help those of us who seem to
think that it might be nice to keep to the small / they have on some

> Also, mounting /usr in the initramfs allows to explore the / to /usr 
> move, which if practical will bring many benefits and allow supporting 
> new features.

Again, if you could perhaps go into some more details it might allow
people to gain a greater understanding of the benefits you envisage.

Cheers, Phil.

P.S. I'm mostly persuaded by the initramfs approach, but I note that
several others seem not to be, and noticed that you were again just
stating that there are advantages, which I presume means that you see
them as so obvious that there's no need to enumerate them -- I just
think you might be more persuasive if you did.
|)|  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: pgpCvaF20LT5I.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: