Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:34:39 -0600
Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote:

> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600
> > Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Michał Górny wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600
> >>> Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Michał Górny wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600
> >>>>> Dale<rdalek1967@×××××.com>  wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Michał Górny wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
> >>>>>>> Enrico Weigelt<weigelt@×××××.de>   wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> * Micha?? Górny<mgorny@g.o>   schrieb:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Does working hard involve compiling even more packages
> >>>>>>>>> statically?
> >>>>>>>> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ?
> >>>>>>> Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should
> >>>>>>> then put more work just to ensure that admin doesn't have to
> >>>>>>> waste 15 minutes to recompile the kernel (if necessary),
> >>>>>>> create an initramfs and add it to bootloader config?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> 80Kbs?  You sure about that?  I somehow failed to mention this
> >>>>>> before. I noticed it when I saw another reply to this post.
> >>>>>> Reality check:
> >>>>> 80 KiB is enough for mounting plain /usr and booting with it.
> >>>>> See tiny-initramfs (but I haven't tested it thoroughly).
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> My plan is to have /usr on lvm.  I think it will end up larger
> >>>> and it still adds one more thing to break.
> >>>>
> >>>> I really wish someone would get a better plan.  I think I see a
> >>>> garbage dump ahead with lots of Linux distros headed that way.
> >>>
> >>> Better plan how? LVM requires udev for some reason. Letting rootfs
> >>> grow with data unnecessary for a number of users is no good plan
> >>> either. Just install that initramfs, be done with it and let us
> >>> focus on actual work rather than fixing random breakages.
> >>>
> >>> We already usually have separate /boot to satisfy the needs of
> >>> bootloader. Then you want us to chain yet another filesystem to
> >>> satisfy the needs of another layer. Initramfs reuses /boot for
> >>> that.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> The point is, I don't like initramfs.  I don't want to use one.
> >
> > And I don't like binaries on rootfs. I don't want to have ones.
> >
> > So we're talking about taste...
>
>
> Actually, we're talking about how things has worked so well for a VERY
> long time and there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

And required a considerable amount of work which increases due to
software getting more complex and users wanting more features.

And I don't get 'the wheel' here? What wheel? I'd say we rather want to
get rid of the useless fifth wheel.

> >> It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are
> >> being broken.  It's not LVM that is breaking it either.  I wouldn't
> >> need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the
> >> recent so called "improvements."
> >
> > ...and your main argument is 'long, long ago someone decided that it
> > should match the same taste as mine, so it should be like it
> > forever'. Of course, those times there were no such thing as an
> > initramfs...
> >
>
>
> Then don't break that.  Just because someone came up with a initramfs
> doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one.

And noone is forced to update the system either.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny