On 2016-01-03 22:22:16, Tom H wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Iustin Pop <ius...@debian.org> wrote:
> > On 2016-01-03 12:59:01, Tom H wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't like usr-merge because it goes against my historical
> >> expectation that "/{,s}bin" be separate from their /usr namesakes and
> >> contain binaries required for boot.
> >
> > OK, so adjust your historical expectation. It's not a technical issue,
> > it's simply a matter of expectations, which have no reason to stay the
> > same for ever.
>
> Did you read the next para of my email?!Yes. Instead of trying to think of initramfs as the new / or any other way of thinking that keeps the distinction, I'm suggesting to simply drop this distinction/expectation. You didn't give any reasons except historical expectation, and I don't think that's a needed one (given that you can't properly make a distinction between what-is-boot and what isn't). regards, iustin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
