Hi Thomas, On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 05:39:14PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 08/31/2012 03:39 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: > > - /usr on a separate filesystem without the use of an initramfs: not > > supported... and no discernable user demand for this.
> Well, let's say I have a big crash, and I want to recover, and I > need to access /etc/lvm/archive in a single user, with of course > my /usr in a bad state, and I wouldn't be able to mount it for > various reasons. Let's say, an HDD crash, which is very common. > If I need to have /usr mounted before init starts, then I'm more > or less dead, and I'll have to get a recovery CD / USB. > If I don't need /usr, everything is fine, I can boot into single > user mode, and repair. > Guess which situation I prefer? There's no reason that you should be "more or less dead". The proposed design still allows for recovery - it just requires that you use the initramfs as the recovery environment, rather than the rootfs. The difference is about where we put our bootstrapping/recovery environment and how we package it, not about whether we have one. > Now, you tell me: what are the advantage of requiring having > everything in /usr exactly? I really don't get what the advantage is. The advantages have been laid out in the Fedora spec. The only additional advantage not mentioned there is that it saves us from fighting an uphill battle against upstreams - not just those who have adopted the Fedora design and are entangling /usr with things like /lib/udev, but even upstreams like GNU autotools, which really doesn't support the idea of separate heirarchies for boot-critical libraries vs. dev packages. > On 08/31/2012 03:39 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: > > However, I struggled to formulate a concrete > > scenario where losing support for that last configuration would actually > > make a difference. > You must have not read some of my posts then. I don't recall if I did or not. But certainly in this post, you're not presenting anything that can't be supported under the new proposal, just something that has to be supported differently. > Also, please make the point into why having stuff in /usr is > to be preferred. Or is it that the *only* argument that you > have is that we are polluted by RedHat crap? If so, why > shouldn't we consider switching to an alternative of udev > like mdev, if its development goes on the right direction, > for Jessie? This is a profound misunderstanding of the problem. udev is not the issue. udev rules *provided by other desktop packages* are the issue. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120901223010.gc22...@virgil.dodds.net
