| 1 |
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 07:27:49 +1300 |
| 2 |
Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> 2012/1/5 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > >>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> > There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation. |
| 9 |
> > The FHS has a nice definition: "The contents of the root filesystem |
| 10 |
> > must be adequate to boot, restore, recover, and/or repair the |
| 11 |
> > system." |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Given that these tools are being moved to /usr and/or duplicated to in |
| 15 |
> initrd , what is the point of a root filesystem anyway now? Just to |
| 16 |
> mount other things on? Just to store /etc ? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Well, you can either keep both /etc and /usr on a single filesystem, or |
| 19 |
move /etc out of rootfs and just make it a tmpfs. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> And if you no longer have a suite of recovery tools on root, you |
| 22 |
> *have* to really have a copy in initrd, otherwise when /usr gets |
| 23 |
> damaged and needs repaired/recovered, you'll need a boot disk just to |
| 24 |
> solve that problem. And that I don't fancy. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
And if / gets damaged, keeping those tools on / doesn't help either. |
| 27 |
If you have them on initramfs, they can fix it as well. Of course we |
| 28 |
could go onto 'what if initramfs gets damaged?' but then you're HDD got |
| 29 |
damaged as well... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> And another errant thought: why not just repurpose the initrd as "the |
| 32 |
> root filesystem" if the root filesystem is just to exist for the |
| 33 |
> purpose of bolting other stuff on. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Noone forbids you to. But then you won't get your memory back when real |
| 36 |
system boots. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Best regards, |
| 40 |
Michał Górny |
Archives