| 1 |
2012/1/5 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> >>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
> There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation. |
| 6 |
> The FHS has a nice definition: "The contents of the root filesystem |
| 7 |
> must be adequate to boot, restore, recover, and/or repair the system." |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Given that these tools are being moved to /usr and/or duplicated to in |
| 11 |
initrd , what is the point of a root filesystem anyway now? Just to |
| 12 |
mount other things on? Just to store /etc ? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Or will /etc move to /usr too? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
/usr/etc somewhat horrifies me. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
And if you no longer have a suite of recovery tools on root, you |
| 19 |
*have* to really have a copy in initrd, otherwise when /usr gets |
| 20 |
damaged and needs repaired/recovered, you'll need a boot disk just to |
| 21 |
solve that problem. And that I don't fancy. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
And another errant thought: why not just repurpose the initrd as "the |
| 24 |
root filesystem" if the root filesystem is just to exist for the |
| 25 |
purpose of bolting other stuff on. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Because in my mind, the primary benefit of initrd over an actual |
| 28 |
filesystem is the initrd is theoretically a lot harder to mess up, and |
| 29 |
you can easily have a plethora of alternative known-good initrd's to |
| 30 |
fall back on. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Kent |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, |
| 36 |
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |
Archives