1 |
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Joshua Kinard <kumba@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Host-specific / and host-independent /usr is not itself a bad idea. I can |
3 |
> envision quite a few useful scenarios for this. But on a single box, why? |
4 |
> And for those of us with differing architectures, how would this add any |
5 |
> benefit? Is this more of a detail for future RHEL releases (since Fedora is |
6 |
> a type of proving ground for RH) so that sysadmins have an easier time |
7 |
> managing them? Nothing wrong with it, but it needs to be a configurable |
8 |
> choice by the end-user. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> I'll admit I may not be as informed as I oughta to be, but what I have read |
11 |
> indicates that some people think this is the direction to go in, for various |
12 |
> reasons. |
13 |
|
14 |
See: |
15 |
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove |
16 |
|
17 |
That is some of the rationale for Fedora. It isn't a bad idea both |
18 |
for destop-oriented and server-oriented setups. It especially makes |
19 |
sense for a more traditional distro with versioned releases (basicaly |
20 |
you just drop in a new /usr and you're done minus a few /etc updates - |
21 |
and if you make /etc nothing but overrides from defaults then it would |
22 |
itself be almost empty and not need updates much). |
23 |
|
24 |
Sure, we're not really planning to do that with Gentoo, but that is |
25 |
the pressure upstream is under. When you have big distros pushing all |
26 |
the major projects in a particular direction we need to be really |
27 |
selective about where we push back. |
28 |
|
29 |
The sky isn't falling though - nobody is looking to go out of their |
30 |
way to break non-root /usr, and we are looking to have a minimal |
31 |
initramfs even for those cases where it breaks a little. |
32 |
|
33 |
Rich |