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 dependencies. 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 systems. > 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