| 1 |
On 03/14/12 14:56, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/14/2012 11:36 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 19:58, Matthew Summers |
| 4 |
>> <quantumsummers@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> Why is an in-kernel initramfs so bad anyway? I am baffled. Its quite |
| 6 |
>>> nice to have a minimal recovery env in case mounting fails, etc, etc, |
| 7 |
>>> etc. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> There is nothing bad about initramfs. I think that you are misreading |
| 10 |
>> the arguments above. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Whatever the arguments may be, the whole discussion boils down to the |
| 13 |
> fact that the only people who seem to have a "problem" are those that |
| 14 |
> have a separate /usr partition and simultaneously refuse to use an |
| 15 |
> initramfs. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I do not have a separate /usr partition, however I agree with Joshua |
| 18 |
Kinard's stance regarding the /usr move. The point of having a separate |
| 19 |
/usr was to enable UNIX to exceed the space constraints that a 1.5MB |
| 20 |
hard disk placed on rootfs. As far as I know, we do not support a 1.5MB |
| 21 |
rootfs so it would make sense to deprecate the practice of having things |
| 22 |
that belong in / in /usr directory, as opposed to making /usr into a new /. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Deprecation of this practice would mean that people could type |
| 25 |
/bin/command instead of /usr/bin/command in situations where absolute |
| 26 |
paths are necessary. We could symlink things in /usr to rootfs for |
| 27 |
compatibility with legacy software. In a more extreme case, we could |
| 28 |
symlink /usr to /, which would make plenty of sense given that we do not |
| 29 |
need a separate /usr at all. |
Archives