On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 19:52:13 +0100 Irrwahn <irrw...@freenet.de> wrote:
> Steve Litt wrote on 16.11.18 18:17: > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:34:05 +0100 > > Irrwahn <irrw...@freenet.de> wrote: > > > >> I cast my vote in favor of making merged /usr the default. > [...] > >> Split /usr is an abomination that should have been put to rest long > >> ago, only to be referred to as quirky anecdote in some obscure > >> footnote. Merging /usr back is a small step on the long way to > >> restore the FSH to what it was meant to be. > > > > Wait a minute. You and I are talking about two different things, so > > perhaps I should ask what the "/usr merge" really is. > > > > Urban, you seem to be against having both a /usr/bin and a /bin. > > Personally, I don't care about that. > > Steve, > > since we're having this discussion in the light of Debian making (or > at least planning to make) merged /usr the default selection in the > next stable version installer, I guess we should consult the FAQ that > comes with the `usrmerge´ package in Debian, c.f.: > > https://salsa.debian.org/md/usrmerge/raw/master/debian/README.Debian > > Excerpt: > > | * What is the purpose of this package? > | The usrmerge package will convert the system it is installed on to > the | everything-in-usr directories scheme, i.e. the /{bin,sbin,lib}/ > directories | become symbolic links to /usr/{bin,sbin,lib}/. > | [...] > > | * Will usrmerge also merge /usr/bin/ and /usr/sbin/? > | No. > > | * Does this require systemd? > | No. > > | * Does this really not require systemd? > | Yes, I promise. Note the answer about initramfs below, and note that systemd and their crew could easily monopolize initramfs makers. Note that dracut is already built around Redhat owned udev. > > | * Does this require an initramfs? > | Only if /usr is on a standalone file system. Which is exactly what I said. > > So, bin and sbin will stay separate, but /bin, /sbin and /lib will > get merged into, and replaced by symlinks to, their counterparts > in /usr. Which means if /usr is a mountpoint, you need an initramfs, which was the basis of my objection. [snip] > > But the minute somebody combines /sbin with /usr/bin or /usr/sbin, > > everything I said in my previous post becomes true. > > Only if you insist on mounting /usr separately from /. A heck of a lot of people insist on a separate partition mounted as /usr, and for them this requires an initramfs, which might become a problem like udev or netword, etc, in the future. Now personally, my root partition is on an ssd, and it includes /usr so all my /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, etc, come straight off SSD at lightning speed. I like it like that. But a lot of people want /usr to be mounted. [snip remarks about tiny diskspace requiring the split: That's not the source of my objection.] SteveT Steve Litt November 2018 featured book: Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting Brand new, second edition http://www.troubleshooters.com/mgr _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
