1 |
On 01/04/2012 09:32 AM, Olivier Crête wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 18:12 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
3 |
>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>>> What mistakes? |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>>> The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of |
8 |
>>> thumb which becomes more and more blurry over time, and hacking |
9 |
>>> packages just to make it work. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation. |
12 |
>> The FHS has a nice definition: "The contents of the root filesystem |
13 |
>> must be adequate to boot, restore, recover, and/or repair the system." |
14 |
> |
15 |
> The problem is that to boot a modern system, you need a shitload of |
16 |
> stuff. For example, modern network filesystems often have secure |
17 |
> authentication and probably LDAP too, so that means we need to move ldap |
18 |
> and openssl into / and all the dependencies. Also, anything that |
19 |
> installs a udev rule needs to be in /, and the list goes on an on. Very |
20 |
> soon, you have almost everything in /... |
21 |
> |
22 |
> This rule made sense in the 80s, but it doesn't match the modern world |
23 |
> anymore. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Some longer explanations: |
26 |
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken |
27 |
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove |
28 |
|
29 |
The FHS notion of "root filesystem as a recovery partition" existed long |
30 |
before the relatively modern development of things like busybox and |
31 |
initramfs made it more practical to use an initramfs as a recovery |
32 |
partition. Anyone who wouldn't prefer to use an initramfs for their |
33 |
"recover partition" probably just doesn't realize how well suited an |
34 |
initramfs is for the job. It's so well suited for the job that it makes |
35 |
the old FHS notion of "root filesystem as a recovery partition" seem quaint. |
36 |
-- |
37 |
Thanks, |
38 |
Zac |