On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 18:22:37 -0500 "Mike Edenfield" <kut...@kutulu.org> wrote:
> I have never personally run into any case > where I had a single /+/usr and regretted it, but I *have* encountered > situations where I could not get /usr mounted and ended up merging it > with /. FWIW, YMMV, etc. And why was that, not udev? What is your point, others have avoided regretting it by having a seperate /usr. > > I can tell you that Pandu's analogy vis a vis Windows is a bit > flawed. What Windows has done recently is (by default for clean > installs) to split the boot loader and related bootstrap code into a > separate partition from the actual operating system. Claiming that > this is analogous to / and /usr is quite a stretch. It is much more > accurate to make it analogous to / and /boot. The System Partition > has no "Windows" files on it, just the equivalent to grub (and it's > also used if you have BitLocker, to decrypt your boot partition). > > Which, to me, means it has absolutely nothing to do with the current > discussion one way or the other :) He did define the fact that he mentioned it because he claimed the repair tools are stored in a small seperate partition like / or root is defined in the FHS which means he brought more to the discussion than you just have. In any case there are major benefits to having Windows with program files on a seperate partition and you shouldn't be stopped from having a seperate /usr without good reason and which there is not or if there is good reason in a hidden agenda/future plan it has not been brought to any discussion, note though that lies and mystery have. Broken for years indeed, more like tiny issues that few care about and so haven't been fixed by default. I re-assert that eudevs mentioning of moving potentially less stable/audited or even arbitrary code to later in the boot process is also welcomed by me.
