]] Petter Reinholdtsen > [Steve Langasek] > > My knee-jerk reaction to the Fedora proposal had been that it was > > sick and wrong and would cause unacceptable breakage for users on > > upgrades if Debian adopted the same plan. However, I struggled to > > formulate a concrete scenario where losing support for that last > > configuration would actually make a difference. > > I can give you one example of what we loose if stuff in / depend on > stuff in /usr/. I read the entire thread, and everyone is talking > about the boot, while ignoring the shutdown.
Given the initramfs (in this context) would mount /usr, we could adopt the interface as specified in http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InitrdInterface and we could make this work. > When using NSS modules linked to libraries in /usr/ and bash (or any > other shell loading user information at startup) as /bin/sh, the shell > scripts being run to shut down the machine will block /usr/ from being > umounted. When /usr/ is a LVM partition, this block LVM from being > shut down, and leave /usr/ in a dirty state and LVM not properly shut > down before poweroff. LVM vs non-LVM isn't really relevant here, is it? It's just about whether /usr is a separate fs or not? -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- 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/87y5gxae5a....@xoog.err.no
