DJ Lucas wrote: > On 04/14/2011 02:55 AM, Simon Geard wrote: > >> Yes, there's been a bit of discussion of this among the distributions of >> late. Here's a couple of the links I've read on the subject... >> >> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken >> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/05/msg00075.html
This is an interesting comment: "If we stop supporting /usr on a separate partition, it entirely removes the need for /usr." >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/01/msg00152.html >> >> > > Wow! Talk about not seeing the trees for the forest! > > Allow me to summarize: The tool we use to manage our system wasn't > designed correctly, so we're going to redesign the system to accommodate > our tool. I'm not sure I see your logic there. For LFS/BLFS having a separate NFS mounted /usr is not a huge problem. For some applications though, the problem of doing that seems to spread across the NFS server and clients. If an update to an application requires a change to the configuration on /etc, then all clients need to be updated anyway. The same issue arises if an application needs to update a kernel module in /lib. Disk space is not really a problem and the ability to push updates across multiple systems exists. Elimination of support for a separate /usr seems to me to have benefits and relatively few drawbacks. It *is* a major change, and many people resist change, but sometimes it's necessary to allow further progress. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
