Re: support for merged /usr in Debian
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Daniel Reurich <daniel@centurion.net.nz> 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
It's udev (already pre-systemd) that needs "/usr" early, with sysvinit
or any other init. Whether this need breaks split-usr can be a matter
of opinion because there'll always be some people saying "it's OK for
me." But does this mean that it's OK for all? It also doesn't mean
that udev doesn't have to go through some workarounds in order to make
it work.
>>> 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???
usr-merge isn't correcting the broken-ness of split-usr. Mounting a
separate "/usr" via the initramfs is the fix to that problem.
Reply to: