| 1 |
On 03/14/2012 04:21 PM, David Leverton wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 14 March 2012 22:51, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Oh, that's simple, separate-/usr-without-initramfs will not work and |
| 4 |
>> will not be supported :) |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> See, it's this "we're doing it this way because we know best and we |
| 7 |
> say so" that upsets people. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing. What we're |
| 10 |
not doing is supporting the "/ is a self-contained boot disk that is |
| 11 |
independent of /usr" use case, simply because it's a huge maintenance |
| 12 |
burden and it doesn't make much sense in the post-initramfs world. The |
| 13 |
people who have a "problem" with this don't understand the burden and |
| 14 |
have no intention of taking on the burden themselves. Even if they |
| 15 |
wanted to take on the burden, they wouldn't be capable of it. If they |
| 16 |
were capable of taking on this burden then they would have already |
| 17 |
understood that the initramfs is the most reasonable solution to their |
| 18 |
perceived problem. |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Thanks, |
| 21 |
Zac |
Archives