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