On Mon, 2011-12-26 at 22:17 +0000, Philip Hands wrote: > On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:25:12 +0100, md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > > On Dec 26, Thomas Goirand <firstname.lastname@example.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 > dependencies. > > Perhaps you could spell out some examples of what you mean, so people > can judge whether they share your perception. [...] /usr may require NFS, which requires networking, which may require crda, which requires: $ ldd /sbin/crda linux-gate.so.1 => (0xf7762000) libssl.so.1.0.0 => /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/i686/cmov/libssl.so.1.0.0 (0xf76f9000) libcrypto.so.1.0.0 => /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/i686/cmov/libcrypto.so.1.0.0 (0xf754b000) libnl.so.1 => /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libnl.so.1 (0xf74fa000) libc.so.6 => /lib/i386-linux-gnu/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 (0xf73a0000) libdl.so.2 => /lib/i386-linux-gnu/i686/cmov/libdl.so.2 (0xf739c000) libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0xf7388000) libm.so.6 => /lib/i386-linux-gnu/i686/cmov/libm.so.6 (0xf7362000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xf7763000) Oh well, hopefully no-one actually expects that to work. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Knowledge is power. France is bacon.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part