On 03/15/2012 05:27 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 20:45, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 03/14/2012 05:36 PM, David Leverton wrote:
>>> On 14 March 2012 23:47, Zac Medico <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing.
>>> Clearly something must have changed in udev 181 to make
>>> /usr-without-initramfs not work anymore, and someone must have done
>>> something to make that change happen, unless udev has aquired the
>>> ability to evolve by itself.
>> You're pointing your finger at udev, but the udev change is just a
>> symptom of a more general shift away from supporting the "/ is a
>> self-contained boot disk that is independent of /usr" use case.
> I think it's better to say that udev is one of the more important components
> of your average Linux system that's decided to support a unified root + /usr
> filesystem. If we were looking at some non-critical, non-boot service that
> made this decision, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
They're intertwined though, since having a unified root implies that
there is no support for the "/ is a self-contained boot disk that is
independent of /usr" use case, and the bulk of people's opposition to
having a unified root seems to stem from their dependence on the "/ is a
self-contained boot disk that is independent of /usr" use case.
So, the question at the heart of the whole discussion is: Should we
support the "/ is a self-contained boot disk that is independent of
/usr" use case?