On 04/16/2011 05:04 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > 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.
Better quoting needed in my original reply. That response was referring to only the second thread. > > 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. > I should clarify, and probably even retract a bit (though you did snip my comment about backwards compatibility hindering progress). I'm not strictly against getting rid of /usr, and my previous message probably would be interpreted that way, I'm only against many of the arguments behind it brought up in the second thread, for which I was rather heated, specifically about dpkg. I had barely glossed over the third thread when I had written my reply. Yes, it would simplify the layout a lot and add the requirement of an initrd for anything unusual. Now, having said that, *if* the maintenance burden is minimal, removing legacy code to 'force' the use of the newer layout is a bad idea IMO, but I don't know why they are intending to remove --settle switch in udevadm. Is it possible to simply restart/reload udev to replay the failed uevents? -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
