On 30/04/12 05:31, William Hubbs wrote: > Correction here; as far as I know the council did not mandate > separate /usr without initramfs. They just said that separate /usr > is a supported configuration.
Separate /usr is a supported configuration, which blocks the armwaving about "oh just use an initramfs then" as a solution. As apparently lessons about filesystem layout have been unlearned: Binaries that are essential for system boot, and must be available in single user mode go in /bin and /sbin, with their libraries in /lib. This allows for /usr to be: 1) marked read-only for NFS mounts, which some of us rely on 2) inside of an LVM2 container, allowing for / to be (very) small 3) on a squashfs filesystem, in order to save space My deployment relies on option 2, other sysadmins rely on option 1. Some of our users are very happy with option 3. Trying to second-guess my motivation, and trying to undo unanimous council votes simply because your opinion is different, really has to stop. I feel a lot better about vapier's pragmatic approach then I do about udev/systemd upstream's ability and motivation to support current systems. If you had any doubts about whether udev was part of the problem, consider what tarball you will have to extract it from in future. Regards, -- Tony Vroon Server systems manager London Internet Exchange Ltd, Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough, PE1 1DA Registered in England number 3137929 E-Mail: t...@linx.net
