On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Dale<rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Pandu Poluan wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 15, 2011 5:49 AM, "Dale"<rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Neil Bothwick wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:15:24 -0500, Dale wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> A'right now. I'm going to start on hal and /usr being on / again. >>>>>> :-P >>>>> >>>>> Jeez, 43 years on and you're still going on about it... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Dang, I was only a year old when hal came out? That just doubled my >>>> age. >>>> It's closer to what I feel like tho. >>>> >>>> I'm still not happy with /usr being required tho. That is still >>>> standing >>>> on a bad nerve. Don't worry tho, I got plenty of those bad nerves. :-P >>>> >>> Do you know that there's a plan to move /var/run to / also? ;-) >>> >>> Rgds, >>> >>> >>> Now someone on here swears up and down that /var isn't going to be >>> required >>> on /. >> >> /var != /var/run >> /var != /var/lock >> >> /var/run is going in /run, but /var/run (by definition) only contains >> things like PID files and runtime sockets. In the same vein, /var/lock >> also is going into /run/lock. I have acknowledged this from the very >> beginning, and I have been pointing out that implying that because >> those two (really small and bounded) directories of /var are going >> into /run and /run/lock, it doesn't mean that the whole /var will go >> into /. That is disinformation. >> >> Nobody has even proposed that /var should go into the same partition >> as /. *Nobody*, and the simplest proof of that is that nobody has >> produced a single proof to the contrary. Not a single email, blog >> post, or wiki entry from any system developer even mentions the >> possibility of requiring /var to be in the same partition as /. >> >> Whoever says that /var will be required to be on the same partition as >> / is either wildly speculating, or spreading FUD. > > So /var/run and /var/lock isn't on /var? Even if they will be linking to > another location, the link has to be there for whatever program to follow. > If /var isn't mounted yet, there is nothing for the program to find.
The link goes the other way around. /run and /lock are the real directories, /var/run is a link to /run, /var/lock is a link to /run/lock. When the initramfs (or the init system) mount /var, they make the link. > When I saw the messages about LVM and /var, that caused LVM to fail to > start. I wouldn't put / on LVM and wouldn't expect it to work without a > init thingy either. Thing is, based on it failing, you can't have /var on a > separate partition and expect LVM to start. So, if you use LVM for /usr > and/or /var, you have to have a init thingy even if / is on a regular file > system. Yes, as I said in my last mail, if you need LVM, you need an initramfs. Remove the LVM, and you can have /var (and /usr for that matter) withouth an initramfs. Where/when did I say something different? >>> I'm telling ya'll, /home is coming. >> >> That is just ridiculous. > > I would have said the same thing about /usr a year ago. I'm not saying it > is coming next week but . . . You can speculate all you want. Fact is, nobody has proposed that, and there is not even a single email suggesting that it will be necessary. On the contrary, the requirement for an initramfs or a /usr inside the same partition as / has been being discussed years ago; if you had followed the developers lists, you wil had hear about it months before it happened. Nothing similar has happened with /var, least of it /home. >>> We are going to end up where we >>> can only have one drive in our Linux boxes for the OS and its relatives. >> >> And so is this: more FUD. >> >>> That or we will ALL have to start using the pesky init* thingy. >> >> More FUD: the current proposal (from Zac, the principal coder of >> portage, and someone who actually wrotes code and know what he is >> talking about) is this: >> >> >> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729fe8.xml >> >> It basically removes the need for a "pesky init* thingy", although for >> the life of me I cannot understand why someone will not see the >> technical advantages of actually using an initramfs. > > I'll have to read his link later. Please do. >>> I got 7 acres of land here, complete with trees. If someone can find the >>> dev that started this mess, I can find some rope. Just saying. ;-) Oh, >>> I >>> live half a mile from the river too. Makes for a good dump site. lol >>> >>> I noticed the other day that when LVM tries to start, it fails. I have >>> /var >>> on a separate partition here. It was complaining about something on /var >>> missing. So, you may be late in reporting this. I think it is already >>> needed for LVM if /usr or /var is on a separate partition. >> >> Again, get the facts right. If you use LVM you will need to use an >> initramfs. If you only use a separated /usr you will be able to use >> Zac's proposal. >> >> In no case whatsoever you will be required to have /var on the same >> partition as /. Nobody has ever proposed that. /run and /run/lock are >> not /var. >> >> Regards. > > No one proposed that /usr was required until just recently. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/1337 That was on February 25, this year. *Eight* months ago. And the stable udev in Gentoo still "supports" (it really doesn't, but whatever) a separated /usr. > Saying it won't > happen really puts you in a bad spot when or if it does. If you know this > for sure and certain, I want your crystal ball. It's called an "educated guess". Of course I could be wrong; but I am more than willing to bet a nice expensive dinner with anyone that it is not going to happen in the next ten years. Any takers? > Just for the record, I don't want a init thingy because it is yet one more > thing to fail when booting. I was forced to use one when I was on Mandrake > and I hated it. It isn't the only reason I switched but it was one reason. > Now that same reason is coming to Gentoo. No is not: if you are talking about Mandrake and not Mandriva, then you did not used an initramfs. You used an initrd, and it was completely different. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
