On 07/17/2012 07:02 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:20:13PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >> An often cited benefit of the /usr merge is the ability to put >> everything but /etc on NFS and for that reason, we need to force an >> initramfs on people happily using /usr without it. > > This is not quite correct. The initramfs is required because of [1].
What is [1]? >> Interestingly, the /usr merge changes made to genkernel permit us to >> mount /etc from a genkernel-built initramfs by putting /etc on a >> separate mount point in fstab and then doing `echo /etc >> >> /etc/initramfs.mounts`. > > That doesn't negate putting /usr on nfs and making it possible for > different hosts to share it. People can still have different hosts share / with host-specific stuff (e.g. /etc) mounted by genkernel. >> I have also been told that the /usr merge is necessary because upstream >> will force it on us. Interestingly, most of @system on Gentoo Linux is >> GNU software, which would need to stop supporting things in / in order >> for that to happen. As far ass I know, systemd does not work on GNU HURD >> and it would be incapable of functioning if the GNU project made this >> change. Hell will freeze long before that happens. > > This is basically not relevant since we do not support HURD. It is relevant because it guarantees that the GNU stuff in @system will continue working. That allows us to narrow our focus to the non-GNU things required to use Gentoo Linux. Looking at @system and what it typically pulls into @world, the only thing that might cause a problem is udev, although virtual/dev-manager is in @system, rather than udev. If that happens, we have a few ways of dealing with that: 1. Patch udev. 2. Fork udev. 3. Consider breaking people's systems then. Until then, doing what RedHat wants is unnecessary. >> Lastly, don't tell me to read systemd's case for why we should break >> people's systems. I have read it and I find it flawed. There is >> absolutely no need for us to make this change. > > Without elaboration on why you find their case flawed, this sounds > like the typical, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" argument. > While that has merrit, if there are advantages to doing > something, like I think there would be to doing the /usr merge, it may > be worth the transition, especially if we can make it as smooth as > possible. The cost to benefit ratio is simply too low for "lets change it because it could be better this way" to merit making the change. The things that I have heard are going to break existing systems that I have gone through some trouble to support. I really don't want to see that.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
