On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 08:06:27PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:25:42AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 05:07:39PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > > > - using the same infrastructure, it's also possible to > > > mount /etc in the initramfs so that you can have e.g. a > > > separately encrypted /etc filesystem. This is a separate > > > feature though and can be split out.
> > This reflects poorly on the infrastructure in question. > I'm merely referring to the generalisation of the local/nfs > scripts to allow mounting of arbitrary filesystems. There's > nothing wrong with this this support code. Yes. This shouldn't be generalized. There are only two filesystems that should be handled from the initramfs: the rootfs, and (optionally) /usr. > > Handling /etc as a > > separate filesystem from /, aside from not being a feature anyone else > > has asked for and not being a requirement for reducing deltas with upstreams > > / other distros, implies that the initramfs has to have a copy of the > > information from /etc/fstab. This is *not* how this should be handled. > I certainly didn't mean to imply this, because this is not what > is being done here. Nothing is stored in the initramfs. For the /etc-as-separate-mount case, you must be storing this information either in the kernel boot options or in the initramfs itself. I don't think either of these options is a reasonable course of action. This same problem is *already solved* by moving the static contents to /usr, making the toplevel directories symlinks, and keeping /etc on the root filesystem so that you are not duplicating information between /etc/fstab and the initramfs (or kernel commandline). Having /etc as a separate filesystem adds complexity and introduces inconsistency, without actually expanding the set of use cases. > Note that this part was merely added as a proposal only as a > demonstration of what could be done /if this was desirable to have/. > If not, then it can be dropped. It was included solely that it could > be reviewed. As you may be able to tell, I feel very strongly that this part should be dropped. Cheers, -- 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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
