On Mon, 2011-12-26 at 22:17 +0000, Philip Hands wrote: > On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:25:12 +0100, [email protected] (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > > On Dec 26, Thomas Goirand <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 12/22/2011 07:19 PM, Philip Hands wrote: > > > > I'm still yet to understand the significant upsides of this proposal > > > So far, the only upside that has been written here, if I understand > > > well, is less patches for upstream udev, which is important since we > > > don't have enough people to work on alternatives/fork/patches. > > No, it's not about "patches". More and more things just need /usr at > > boot time, and the solution is to mount it in the initramfs. > > I presume that you mean that they need /usr early enough in the boot > that we'll not have a chance to mount it as we do now because of entangled > dependencies. > > Perhaps you could spell out some examples of what you mean, so people > can judge whether they share your perception. [...]
/usr may require NFS, which requires networking, which may require crda,
which requires:
$ ldd /sbin/crda
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xf7762000)
libssl.so.1.0.0 => /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/i686/cmov/libssl.so.1.0.0
(0xf76f9000)
libcrypto.so.1.0.0 =>
/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/i686/cmov/libcrypto.so.1.0.0 (0xf754b000)
libnl.so.1 => /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libnl.so.1 (0xf74fa000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/i386-linux-gnu/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 (0xf73a0000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/i386-linux-gnu/i686/cmov/libdl.so.2 (0xf739c000)
libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0xf7388000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/i386-linux-gnu/i686/cmov/libm.so.6 (0xf7362000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xf7763000)
Oh well, hopefully no-one actually expects that to work.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
