On Dec 22, Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> wrote: > 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. It's not just this, in some cases this "extra work" is significant enough to not be practical or even possibile. And if you do not pretend to boot without /usr being available, new features like everything-in-/usr become possible. The main objections so far can be summarized as "I like to do thing my way and changes make me unconfortable". As it has been discussed, the reasonable need for a rescue environment can be satisfied in a much better way with a standalone rescue initramfs which is not dependent even on the root file system (if you can break /usr then you can break / as well). > 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. Yes, we will need something like this. But sooner or later udev will depend on it, so I fear that it will not solve your problem. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature