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

[Dale]

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.


>
>> 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.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"