Re: from / to /usr/: a summary
I demand that Ben Hutchings may or may not have written...
> On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 20:42 +0000, Philip Hands wrote:
[snip]
>> I've read all of these threads, but I'm afraid I'm still a little
>> befuddled about the pros and cons.
>> Pro seems to be saving some effort for packagers when RedHat as upstream,
>> say, makes changes that assume /usr is always available, that's clear.
> This isn't specific to 'Red Hat as upstream'. It's simply very hard for a
> general-purpose distribution to know all executables and libraries that may
> be wanted by init scripts and daemons before all volumes are mounted, and
> it can be disruptive to move executables between directories.
I'd say exactly enough to mount /usr and to be able to do filesystem checks.
So, for me, /sbin/mount, /sbin/fsck.ext{3,4} and the minimum necessary to
support these.
I keep *small* boot partitions, and I may have a few kernels in them;
initramfs is, for me, bloat.
[snip]
> 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 – but probably not before then.
I will NOT use an initramfs just to have /usr mounted early enough.
[snip]
--
| _ | Darren Salt, using Debian GNU/Linux (and Android)
| ( ) |
| X | ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
| / \ | http://www.asciiribbon.org/
Syntax is another name for conscience money.
Reply to: