On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 23:04 +1300, Daniel Reurich wrote: > On 03/01/16 22:33, Philip Hands wrote: > > Daniel Reurich <daniel@centurion.net.nz> writes: > > > > ... > > > Because systemd doesn't work without /usr on the root partition isn't a > > > good reason either. > > > > You are right ... it is a poor reason, because it is pure fantasy. > > Then why is it that since the introduction of systemd is having /usr on > a separate partition suddenly considered evil and systemd complains > loudly about it. It always has worked and does work fine for me with > sysvinit systemd complains if it has to mount /usr itself. This is because mounting of local filesystems generally depends on various services and udev hooks that may themselves depend on /usr. This is also true when using sysvinit. Some services go through contortions to work before /usr is mounted; others may behave subtly differently if it's a separate filesystem. We really need a simplified code path for mounting /usr early on, and that is now provided by the initramfs. > > > That just means systemd is broken by design and needs to be fixed. > > > > If what you claimed were true, then I'd agree with you, but since all > > the systems I've upgraded to systemd have a separate /usr, and are > > working without any issue whatsoever, this drivel can be safely ignored. > > > Then what's the problem and why are we even having this conversation > about merged /usr??? As I understand it, merging /bin and /lib into /usr allows us to support certain uses cases more easily - e.g. package installation in a filesystem transaction, or sharing an NFS /usr filesystem. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part