1 |
On 01/21/2012 03:45 PM, Dale wrote: |
2 |
> Zac Medico wrote: |
3 |
>> On 01/21/2012 01:34 PM, Dale wrote: |
4 |
>>> Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
>>>>> It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are |
6 |
>>>>> being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't |
7 |
>>>>> need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the |
8 |
>>>>> recent so called "improvements." |
9 |
>>>> |
10 |
>>>> ...and your main argument is 'long, long ago someone decided that it |
11 |
>>>> should match the same taste as mine, so it should be like it forever'. |
12 |
>>>> Of course, those times there were no such thing as an initramfs... |
13 |
>>>> |
14 |
>>> |
15 |
>>> |
16 |
>>> Then don't break that. Just because someone came up with a initramfs |
17 |
>>> doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one. |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> The old way imposes requirements that are no longer supported by |
20 |
>> upstream software. So, you basically have three choices: |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> 1) Use old software that supports the old way |
23 |
>> 2) Develop new software to support the old way |
24 |
>> 3) Use an initramfs or pre-init script to mount /usr if it must be on |
25 |
>> a separate partition |
26 |
> |
27 |
> |
28 |
> So the solution is to break things because things are broken. |
29 |
|
30 |
Well, option 2 means that people have to step up write software that |
31 |
supports the old way. For most people, option 3 is probably the most |
32 |
practical route. |
33 |
-- |
34 |
Thanks, |
35 |
Zac |