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

[Dale]

Michał Górny wrote:
> 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.



Actually, they are adding the 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.
>


Oh, that makes perfect sense.  Thinks for the showing of brilliance
there.  lol

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"