On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 10:19:29PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Petter Reinholdtsen > > [Steve Langasek] > > > My knee-jerk reaction to the Fedora proposal had been that it was > > > sick and wrong and would cause unacceptable breakage for users on > > > upgrades if Debian adopted the same plan. However, I struggled to > > > formulate a concrete scenario where losing support for that last > > > configuration would actually make a difference. > > I can give you one example of what we loose if stuff in / depend on > > stuff in /usr/. I read the entire thread, and everyone is talking > > about the boot, while ignoring the shutdown. > Given the initramfs (in this context) would mount /usr, we could adopt > the interface as specified in > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InitrdInterface and we > could make this work. Well, even without that, it would be straightforward to change the shutdown scripts from trying to unmount /usr to trying to remount it read-only - i.e., the exact same thing we do for /. There is one pathological case where this would be a problem, and that's where the backing store for /usr is located on another filesystem (such as an encrypted loopback filesystem). While the init scripts do try to do everything right such that this *could* be handled correctly at shutdown as long as /usr can be unmounted, I can't see how this would be a sane configuration that we need worry about supporting any better than we already do (i.e., not well). -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature