On 03/14/12 17:04, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:57:52PM +0000, David Leverton wrote: >> Would anyone else like to continue with their own favourite >> separate-/usr reason? > > Haveing a separate /usr is wonderful, and once we finish moving /sbin/ > and /bin/ into /usr/ it makes even more sense. See the /usr page at > fedora for all of the great reasons why this is good. > > What doesn't make sense is people who do that, refusing to use an initrd > or initramfs to make the whole thing work properly. > > It's as if people want the benefits, yet fail to want to actually use > the tools required to get those benefits. It makes no sense, and if > anyone continues to complain, it shows a lack of understanding. > > greg k-h >
Is this that page? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove That refers to the systemd website on freedesktop.org. http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge Reading that, it seems to me that this /usr move was caused by a systemd-specific decision that rootfs should be both system-specific and located on the particular system while /usr should be network mountable. However, I see no argument for why that should be the case. Thinking about it, I suppose this would make sense in an enterprise setting where everything is diskless. If you PXE boot, put rootfs on iSCSI and have /usr on a NFS mount, this would work very well. Claiming that people show a lack of understanding when you never explain this, however, is definitely the wrong thing to do. With that said, I have a few questions: 1. Why does no one mention the enterprise use case at all? 2. Why not make rootfs a NFS mount with a unionfs at the SAN/NAS device? 3. Why not let the users choose where these directories go and support both locations?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
