On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie<a...@muc.de> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, everybody. >>> >>> Hope nobody minds me starting a new thread with an accurate name. >>> >>> Which version of udev is it that has this nauseating feature of needing >>> /usr loaded to boot? >>> >>> Somewhere in that version's source will be several (or lots of) "/usr". >>> Just how difficult is it going to be to replace "/usr/bin" with "/bin" >>> throughout the source? >>> >>> udev is part of the kernel. How come the kernel hackers aren't up in >>> arms about this as much as we are? Or are they, maybe? In which case, >>> maybe the kernel people would welcome an option to disrequire the early >>> mounting of /usr as much as we would. >>> >>> Anyhow, I'd like to take a peek at the source code which does this evil >>> thing. Would somebody please tell me which version of udev is involved. >>> >>> Thanks. >> >> (This would be my only post in this new thread: I think I have made my >> point of view clear in the other thread). >> >> I have seen a lot of disinformation going on in the other threads >> (like some people suggesting that /var would not be able to be on its >> own partition at some point in the future). Just before everyone start >> to wildy conjecture, please take a look at this: >> >> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken >> >> Also, a look at this thread is maybe justified: >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/1728/ >> >> Both things are in the context of systemd, but it's related to the >> discussion at hand. I know not everybody wants to use systemd, and >> think Lennart and Kay are the root of all that is wrong and evil on >> the world, but I will recommend everyone interested in the reasons of >> the push for a recommended initramfs to take a look at the page in >> fd.org, and the thread in the systemd mailing list. Even if you don't >> agree with the reasoning, it is worth to take a look at it. >> >> As for me, I would say one last time my POV: Linux strives to be much >> more than Unix, and that means do things differently. It will always >> be capable of do anything that Unix does, and most of the time it will >> do it better. But that doesn't (necessarily) means that it will do it >> in the same way. >> >> And many of us don't take "but my config/setup/partition works now" as >> a valid argument to restrain progress. >> >> Change happens. >> >> Regards everyone. > > You say it was disinformation about /var. Care to explain why me and one > other person read the same thing? It was mentioned on -dev. I was pretty > sure it was and then another person posted they read the same. So, I'm > almost certain it was said at this point. Surely we can't both be wrong.
Where did you guys read it? Who said /var could not be in its own partition anymore? What piece of code stops working if /var it's in its own partition? Who is proposing that a separated /var will not be supported in the future? The thread I post talks about /var/run and /var/lock needing to be symbolic links to /run and /lock, but AFAIK (and I tend to follow this sort of things) /var not only can be in its own partition, it is the recommended setup. Saying that proposing /run and /lock to be available at boot time means that in the future a separated /var partition could be not supported is, in my book, disinformation. /var/run and /var/lock (by definition) are almost empty (in space). /var/lib usually stores whole databases. The difference is important and relevant. Damn, this list is like crack. Regards everyone. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
