Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) <prometheanfire@g.o>
Subject: Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 01:33:05 -0600
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 02:12:22 -0500
Olivier Crête <tester@g.o> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, 2011-12-31 at 19:59 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> > I have been working with robbat2 on solutions to the separate /usr
> > issue (That is why I have specifically cc'd him on this email)
> > which will allow people to not use an initramfs. If we migrate
> > everything off of the root fs to /usr, all of those solutions become
> > moot. On the other hand, if we don't migrate, we run the risk of
> > eventually having our default configuration not supported by
> > upstream.
> 
> I think the general consensus among other distros is that initramfs is
> the new /. Many core elements of the Linux system will start
> installing themselves in /usr, starting with udev, so we won't have a
> choice anyway. Also, I doubt it's currently possible to boot a Gentoo
> system without /usr mounted anyway.
> 
> > 1) Start migrating packages along with upstream and have everyone
> > who has a separate /usr (including me by the way) start using an
> > initramfs of some kind, either dracut or one that we generate
> > specifically for gentoo. The reason I suggest the initramfs, is,
> > unfortunately if we migrate everything, nothing else would work.
> 
> I also don't see a good reason to not adopt dracut, re-implementing
> something that already works and is maintained by a competent upstream
> seems wasteful to me. I really don't see why people resist using an
> initramfs so much.
> 
> The udev/kmod/systemd/dracut effort to standardise the base userspace
> of Linux is probably scary for quite a few Gentoo-ers as it means
> that the end result of an installed Gentoo system will be less
> differentiated than it was before. But it still is a step in the
> right direction as most of these standardized pieces are much better
> than what we currently have. The OpenRC/baselayout-2 fiasco, not much
> better than baselayout-1 and unmaintained upstream shows that even a
> relatively large distribution like us can't maintain a competitive
> base system solution, adopting the udev/kmod/systemd way will allow
> us to use all the work that they are doing and instead concentrate on
> making a better system.
> 


All of my systems currently have a seperate /usr that is mounted at
boot.  Unfortunately I do agree that this is not something that we can
fight.  This was brought up earlier and the only thing we can do
for people like myself (who mount /usr at boot) is to create a simple
initramfs that only has the purpose of mounting /usr at boot.  The main
thing I don't like about initramfs is that we have to regenerate it any
time we update the packages that get included in it.

--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
Attachment:
signature.asc (PGP signature)
Replies:
Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
-- Olivier Crête
References:
rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
-- William Hubbs
Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
-- Olivier Crête
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
Next by thread:
Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
Previous by date:
Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
Next by date:
Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.