Hi Canek, On Saturday, 15. October 2011 02:02:13 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > 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_20749880f5bc5feda14148849872 > >> 9fe8.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?
I would. But given the way udev people "solve" those issues, I don't. If something on /var is needed during boot in the next ten years, they will propose to move it to /. They do it with /run, they do it with /lock, they will do it the same way the next time such an issue arises. > Regards. Best, Michael
