Le vendredi 10 mai 2013 à 14:46 +0100, Roger Leigh a écrit : > > There are various benefits, discussed before at length (here, > > elsewhere). Suggesting/summarizing this as "satisfying Lennart" is a bit > > telling. > > It's still entirely accurate though. This is ultimately being driven by > uncooperative upstreams unwilling to maintain their stuff properly, and > this really means udev, and this is part of systemd for better or worse. > Well, worse.
This is just a story you like to tell yourself. Give you an enemy for a good crusade for the “right” (way of developing a UNIX system) instead of working yourself on making things better. > Ensuring /usr is mounted at boot time is one thing. It provides > certain very useful guarantees which we currently don't have. Merging > / and /usr is another matter entirely, and it's just one of several > increasingly bizarre and technically questionable decisions coming > from the Fedora camp of late. Once /usr is mounted at boot time, what does it change? Once / and /usr are treated the same way, why should you care about whether a given binary lives under / or /usr? What is the impact? > How are those udev replacement projects coming along? Something else > to think about for jessie. Why should we care? We need one udev implementation that works correctly, not seven that don’t. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- 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/1368293674.12318.14.camel@tomoyo
