Re: [gentoo-dev] Opinion against /usr merge

[Michael Mol]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>> Debian uses initramfs-tools...
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK, neither genkernel nor dracut were expected to get tied to the
>>>> Gentoo update process. Has that changed?
>>>
>>> The kernel you are running (if you update your machine) is not tied to
>>> the Gentoo update process. The *source code* gets installed, but the
>>> kernel source remains unchanged in /usr/src/whatever. It's the user
>>> responsibility to configure, compile, and install the kernel (and then
>>> update LILO, grub-legacy or GRUB2). It can be automated with (ta-da)
>>> genkernel, but it's not "tied to the Gentoo update process".
>>>
>>> I really don't see that much difference with needing to also update
>>> the initramfs, if needed.
>>
>> What if your DNS resolver in your rescue shell has a vulnerability?
>> What if wget, links or whatever network tools you use during recovery
>> have a vulnerability?
>>
>> These are tools which are commonly placed in initramfs.
>
> First of all, none of this has nothing to do with the discussion at
> hand.

I completely disagree. If you take a step in a direction, you have
momentum. So before you take a step in that direction, you should look
where that momentum will carry you.

> Second, I don't know what kind of initramfs you are familiar
> with, but mine has nothing network related, and I don't see *any*
> reason to include *anything* network related to an initramfs.

So your initramfs doesn't include network tools such as ping,
traceroute or wget. Fine. Fundamentally speaking, why shouldn't
someone else's?

>
>>> Because, besides, if your /usr is not in a different partition, you
>>> don't even *need* an initramfs. In that case not using an initramfs is
>>> supported by all upstreams.
>>
>> And what of /var? /opt?
>
> What about them? Again, what it has this anything to do with our
> current discussion?

See my reply to Michal.

>
>> The problem with the /usr merge upstream is
>> that someone didn't think things through when they pushed it, and the
>> same reasoning used to justify it easily justifies changing the way
>> /var and /opt are treated.
>
> That's pure speculation.

I'll repeat myself. If you take a step, you have momentum. Before you
take a step, you should see where that momentum will carry you.

> Nobody has ever suggested merging /opt nor
> /var; if I'm mistaken I would love to see even a single link (mail,
> blog post, IRC discussion) were it was at least mentioned as a good
> idea to do the same with /opt or /var. I'm pretty sure you don't have
> any.

I don't believe anyone *does* think it's a good idea, but I don't see
how the arguments on behalf of a /usr merge don't operate in the same
way on /var or /opt. If the argument is flawed for either of those
two, I don't see how it isn't equally flawed for /usr. I've never seen
where people have examined that in depth.

-- 
:wq