Re: support for merged /usr in Debian
Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: support for merged /usr in Debian"):
> On Jan 05, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > /etc contains files which are modified during normal operation.
>
> Depending on the operation involved, we consider this to be a bug:
> https://wiki.debian.org/ReadonlyRoot
Well, perhaps. My point is that currently there are real
configurations that work well with ro /usr but require rw /.
Abolishing the distinction between /usr and / will break systems that
have been set up that way.
I have to say that I'm rather confused and also dismayed by this
thread. There is an awful lot of aggressive language on both sides.
AFAICT the original posting in this thread is from someone who is
trying to make it easier and more automatic to try to produce Debian
installations which do not have a /usr vs / distinction.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with that.
What is causing all the heat is the suggestion that support might be
withdrawn for currently working configurations which _do_ have a /usr
vs / distinction, or which do mount /usr using / rather than
initramfs, or some such.
It seems to me that enough people want Debian to retain the
flexibility which is gained by the /usr vs / division, that we as a
project should continue to provide it.
That does not mean that every user has to have a separate /usr or that
/usr can't be mounted by the default initramfs. It does mean that
package maintainers need to continue to place files in / or /usr as
appropriate, respond approprately to reasonable bug reports, etc.
Ian.
Reply to: