Hi
Recently a couple new ebuilds were added to the portage tree and I felt
it's worthwhile to give a friendly heads up.
So without further ado let me introduce EKOPath and Path64.
EKOPath - This is a binary installer that comes from one of the nightly
PathScale builds. The source to the co
Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on top of
/ before init is and has been broken with udev for a long time now[1][2][3]
[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364235
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove#Move_all_to_.2Fusr
[3] http://www.freedesktop.or
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on top of
> / before init is and has been broken with udev for a long time now[1][2][3]
>
> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364235
> [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 10:27:27 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on top
> of / before init is and has been broken with udev for a long time
> now[1][2][3]
>
> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364235
> [2] http://fedoraproject.org
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 11:46:00 +0100 as excerpted:
> It's important to consider the timeline here. Separate /usr was
> accidentally broken by a sudden increase in dependencies from base
> system packages to desktopy things. It was only later that certain
> people decided that
On 07/30/2011 01:46 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 10:27:27 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on top
>> of / before init is and has been broken with udev for a long time
>> now[1][2][3]
>>
>> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.or
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How
> many users that might be?
>
> I dislike the documentation not being clear on separate /usr, that it
> should only be used if you *really* need it due to the potential pr
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>
> Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How
> many users that might be?
If you have / encrypted, then you can leave /usr unencrypted as it
contains no secrets. Also /usr can remain mounted read-only most of the
time, so there is a reduced chan
On 07/30/2011 05:28 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>>
>> Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How
>> many users that might be?
>
> If you have / encrypted, then you can leave /usr unencrypted as it
> contains no secrets. Also /usr can
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> 11:39 <@aidecoe> dracut has module fstab-sys. You might check this out
> to mount additional stuff before switching to root.
If we want to make /usr required on boot we should build this
capability into genkernel. Or, we should have genk
Excerpts from Rich Freeman's message of 2011-07-30 17:10:14 +0200:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Samuli Suominen
> wrote:
> > 11:39 <@aidecoe> dracut has module fstab-sys. You might check this
> > out to mount additional stuff before switching to root.
>
> If we want to make /usr required o
On Saturday 30 July 2011 14:55:23 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How
> many users that might be?
From /etc/conf.d/fsck, seems like a reason to keep the / FS as small as
possible to reduce the amount of time spent waiting during boot:
# f
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1:20 PM, David Leverton
wrote:
> On Saturday 30 July 2011 14:55:23 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How
>> many users that might be?
>
> From /etc/conf.d/fsck, seems like a reason to keep the / FS as small as
> possi
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 13:38:55 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> > From /etc/conf.d/fsck, seems like a reason to keep the / FS as
> > small as possible to reduce the amount of time spent waiting during
> > boot:
>
> Well, that only really has a benefit if the system can do something
> useful between the
On Saturday 30 July 2011 18:38:55 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1:20 PM, David Leverton
> > From /etc/conf.d/fsck, seems like a reason to keep the / FS as small as
> > possible to reduce the amount of time spent waiting during boot:
> Well, that only really has a benefit if the syst
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:28:54 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
> >
> > Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How
> > many users that might be?
>
> If you have / encrypted, then you can leave /usr unencrypted as it
> contains no secre
Certainly a good point - you don't want to spoil a SSD-RAID-set's
performance by encrypting /usr but there is surely a strong need to
encrypt /etc and thus /, which has a rather neglectable impact on
performance of a system.
I'd even say that in a lot of environments splitting / and /usr is more
co
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:57:14AM +, Duncan wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 11:46:00 +0100 as excerpted:
>
> > It's important to consider the timeline here. Separate /usr was
> > accidentally broken by a sudden increase in dependencies from base
> > system packages to desk
Hi everyone,
We've found that portage's unpack behavior is inconsistent for non-tar
files compressed with gz|Z|z|bz2|bz|lzma|xz extensions [1]. Currently,
it emulates tools like gunzip and bunzip2, unpacking them to the
directory of the source file.
For consistency, we could make it unpack them t
Michał Górny schrieb:
>> If you have / encrypted, then you can leave /usr unencrypted as it
>> contains no secrets.
>
> That's doing things upside-down. You should encrypt the data needing
> encryption, not the other way. This usually means /home which is
> separate more often than /usr.
That is
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:27:27AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on top of
> / before init is and has been broken with udev for a long time now[1][2][3]
>
> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364235
> [2] http://fedoraproject
Rich Freeman posted on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 10:28:56 -0400 as excerpted:
> Is there any kind of
> consensus in the FOSS community beyond Gentoo that FHS has had its
> day? What is the policy for other distros?
>From what I see on the general blogs, yes, /current/ FHS has had its
day. HOWEVER, one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30-07-2011 22:17, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:27:27AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on
>> top of / before init is and has been broken with udev for a long
>> t
On 07/31/2011 03:59 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On 30-07-2011 22:17, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:27:27AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on
>>> top of / before init is and has been broken with udev f
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 04:40:33AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 07/31/2011 03:59 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> > On 30-07-2011 22:17, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:27:27AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >>> Since running separate /usr without mounting it from
25 matches
Mail list logo
