Hi, On 03.01.2016 19:15, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> However, this also means that systemd can never fully replace sysvinit, >> except on desktops, laptops and servers that follow a standard layout. > I see no reason why this would be true. Because the alternative is to bloat the scope of the systemd project so it covers all previously existing use cases, which is a monumental undertaking and would require design decisions that run counter to the project's goals. > Anyway, if you think that the merged /usr scheme is about systemd then > you are automatically disqualified from taking part in this discussion > because you are not understanding the basic underlying issues. It is very strongly related -- before systemd, we just did not start any services before all file systems were checked and present. This means a boot time penalty, but avoids problems with undeclared dependencies. Dependency based booting has always been a difficult problem, and that the systemd maintainers are often pushing to narrow the scope rather than bloat systemd is the right choice from their perspective, but this should not narrow the scope for Debian as a whole. The current debate is about cementing a previously introduced restriction in order to get rid of a workaround that was necessary in the first place because design decisions taken earlier meant losing support for mounting /usr through the regular channels. That workaround is not too painful to keep around regardless of whether the system is booting into systemd or sysvinit later on, because any system with enough resources to use a standard initramfs is likely to have a local /usr anyway, and any smaller devices cannot run systemd sensibly anyway. So no one cared. Changing the file system hierarchy to accommodate one project can be debated, but it should not be assumed that just because new installations by end users look a particular way, all other deployments necessarily do so as well. I'm in no particular hurry to merge / and /usr, as all it does is get rid of a workaround that has already been deployed to millions of systems with very little adverse effects. It would not even allow booting systemd based systems without an initramfs, even if there was sufficient interest in doing so, so frankly I don't see the point. All I see is a major headache as I need to build upgrade paths for embedded devices. Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature