| 1 |
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 09:31:07AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> Add another to the list of folks who disagree with this and with the |
| 3 |
> approach being taken. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I don't blame gentoo devs per se, but I do feel like this is being |
| 6 |
> forced down everyone's throats without any regard to the *nix philosophy |
| 7 |
> of having separate /usr which has worked for years, and if people would |
| 8 |
> fix their bugs correctly would continue to work. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Same here. I do consider the situation to be a bug and, even if the damage |
| 11 |
is already done, it doesn't mean we should help with debolishing what is |
| 12 |
left. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
If anything, we should make it clear to users when and why an initramfs is |
| 15 |
needed. Saying "because you have a /usr on a separate file system" is not |
| 16 |
only a lie, it also covers the truth beneath it. Rather, why not identify in |
| 17 |
which situation(s) you will need an initramfs and work from there? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I personally have /usr on a separate partition too (using LVM) without an |
| 20 |
initramfs or initrd. Works just fine. And I'd like to keep it that way, |
| 21 |
since it is simple and very manageable. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Wkr, |
| 24 |
Sven Vermeulen |
Archives