1 |
On 03/15/2012 05:27 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: |
2 |
> On 03/14/2012 20:45, Zac Medico wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> On 03/14/2012 05:36 PM, David Leverton wrote: |
5 |
>>> On 14 March 2012 23:47, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
>>>> It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing. |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> Clearly something must have changed in udev 181 to make |
9 |
>>> /usr-without-initramfs not work anymore, and someone must have done |
10 |
>>> something to make that change happen, unless udev has aquired the |
11 |
>>> ability to evolve by itself. |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> You're pointing your finger at udev, but the udev change is just a |
14 |
>> symptom of a more general shift away from supporting the "/ is a |
15 |
>> self-contained boot disk that is independent of /usr" use case. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> |
18 |
> I think it's better to say that udev is one of the more important components |
19 |
> of your average Linux system that's decided to support a unified root + /usr |
20 |
> filesystem. If we were looking at some non-critical, non-boot service that |
21 |
> made this decision, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. |
22 |
|
23 |
They're intertwined though, since having a unified root implies that |
24 |
there is no support for the "/ is a self-contained boot disk that is |
25 |
independent of /usr" use case, and the bulk of people's opposition to |
26 |
having a unified root seems to stem from their dependence on the "/ is a |
27 |
self-contained boot disk that is independent of /usr" use case. |
28 |
|
29 |
So, the question at the heart of the whole discussion is: Should we |
30 |
support the "/ is a self-contained boot disk that is independent of |
31 |
/usr" use case? |
32 |
-- |
33 |
Thanks, |
34 |
Zac |