Re: from / to /usr/: a summary
- To: Thomas Goirand <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: from / to /usr/: a summary
- From: Goswin von Brederlow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:59:08 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <4EF6DB00.firstname.lastname@example.org> (Thomas Goirand's message of "Sun, 25 Dec 2011 16:12:48 +0800")
- References: <20111208191657.GB22934@bongo.bofh.it> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <4EF6DB00.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thomas Goirand <email@example.com> writes:
> On 12/22/2011 07:07 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
>> It seems to me that wanting to have / outside LVM but /usr inside LVM is a
>> fairly obscure corner case.
> I have about 100 servers setup this way, and my laptops as well. I really
> don't see why this would be a corner case. Please understand that many
> different people have many different configuration, and that in today's
> Debian, *absolutely everything is allowed*, and never, ever, Debian said
> that one type of setup would one day be forbidden.
> Taking decisions that some setup are "not supported" would be a bad move
> whatever the partitioning we are talking about. Please don't do that,
> there's no reason why Debian would take such move.
The reason for such a setup is, historically, so that you could boot
without initramfs. A small / (including /boot) to boot from and start up
lvm before mounting /usr, /var and /home.
Prior to grub2, which can now boot from LVM directly, this was a verry