On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:34:10 -0700, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > /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,
Putting the contents of /var/run and /var/lock on the root filesystem makes sense. > 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 /. The stated reason for requiring /usr on / is that udev can run *arbitrary* scripts and commands. If they are arbitrary, they could require access to anywhere, including /var or /home. That's the problem with this approach. Instead of saying "it can run stuff from anywhere, so anywhere must be mounted before udev is run" the fact that it is trying to run these arbitrary commands before filesystems are mounted should be addressed. > Whoever says that /var will be required to be on the same partition as > / is either wildly speculating, or spreading FUD. It's not wild speculation, it is logical extrapolation of the current approach. > 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. We understand its advantages in some circumstances, but I cannot understand why someone will not see the technical disadvantages of actually using an initramfs. -- Neil Bothwick It is impossible to fully enjoy procrastination unless one has plenty of work to do.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
