On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 19:51 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 19:43 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > > All things considered, I have no immediate plan to push for
> > > deprecating a standalone /usr.
> >
> > Thanks for going back.
>
> Seconded. Thanks also, Marco, for notifying us of this change in
> direction.
I found that Marco's "summary" was partial (i.e not a summary of the
situation but his answer to FAQ).
> > However, if you think this debate is going to come back later, maybe
> > we could ensure that we can remove this support later. This starts by
> > encouraging people to use alternate solutions when possible, so that
> > we don’t hit again the “I have setups that do this”issue in a few
> > years.
>
> Why would a few years make the scenarios for separate-filesystem-/usr,
> already discussed here and acknowledged to be valid, suddenly worthy of
> deprecation?
Why?
[answering Marco's list]
- Because Debian could state now that standalone /usr won't be
supported in Squeeze+n, modifying D-I (see other posts).
- Because "old hardware" will be 686 + ?GB disk rather than
486 + ?MB disk...
- Because SSD disk will be really cheap and reliable (???)
- Because backup software will be even better ;)
- Because D-I might install LVM system by default, making it easy to
resume from "/ is full"
- Because all architecture could have a boot-loader that support
LVM + ${ENCRYPTED_FS}
- Because SELinux could be enabled by default, reducing the need for
read-only "/" filesystem
etc.
Franklin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
