| 1 |
W dniu 01.08.2011 13:12, Marc Schiffbauer pisze: |
| 2 |
> * Samuli Suominen schrieb am 01.08.11 um 09:23 Uhr: |
| 3 |
>> On 07/31/2011 05:23 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:55:23 +0300 |
| 5 |
>>> Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> I dislike the IUSE="+static" some packages are currently doing to |
| 8 |
>>>> workaround this, instead of moving the needed shared libs to / |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>> I dislike the idea of pciutils and usbutils database(s) in |
| 11 |
>>>> non-standard location in / to keep udev working |
| 12 |
>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>> I dislike the idea of moving libglib-2.0, libdbus-1, libdbus-glib-1, |
| 14 |
>>>> and couple of dozen more libs to / |
| 15 |
>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>> I dislike the idea of maintaining and keeping track of the files in / |
| 17 |
>>>> using files from /usr. Does any of the PMs have check for this, like |
| 18 |
>>>> NEEDED entries? I can imagine this getting past the maintainers easily |
| 19 |
>>>> otherwise |
| 20 |
>>>> |
| 21 |
>>>> Most likely still not seeing the full picture here, and just |
| 22 |
>>>> scratching the surface... |
| 23 |
>>>> Despite that, I don't have any strong opinion on any of this, just |
| 24 |
>>>> need to know if I should start moving the files over |
| 25 |
>>> |
| 26 |
>>> Honestly, I'd rather see system libs and apps being moved to /usr |
| 27 |
>>> rather than the opposite. IMO the benefit of getting a clear tree is |
| 28 |
>>> greater than benefits of having separate fs for 'system' and |
| 29 |
>>> 'non-system' packages which actually tend to randomly depend one on |
| 30 |
>>> another. |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> that's my impression now too since nobody has managed to provide useful |
| 33 |
>> case for separate /usr, or they have been very vague like adding 1+1 on |
| 34 |
>> / and /usr filesystem sizes and counting the risk of corrupted |
| 35 |
>> filesystem from that (one word: backup) |
| 36 |
>> and even then they can go with dracut and have the initramfs mount the |
| 37 |
>> /usr before init |
| 38 |
>> dracut with it's externsive modules covers the other mentioned cases too |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
I'm responding to this particular mail cause it's last in queue and |
| 42 |
because it replicates things already mentioned before. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
I am a zeleous follower of having seperate /usr partition, thus seeing |
| 45 |
moot arguments that goes "in favour" of "my" case is pretty annoying. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> * For example if a filesystem fills 100%. Imagine your /usr is 100% |
| 48 |
> full by accident. |
| 49 |
Thats bs, cause / can fill out even when you have /usr seperate. Even |
| 50 |
faster cause usually you've got very small / like <<1Gb. You miss one |
| 51 |
thing that accidentally writes to / and you're as much toasted. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
> * IMO its a good idea to seperate mostly static filesystems from |
| 54 |
> those with many writes |
| 55 |
How mering / and /usr increase that? What prevents you having separate |
| 56 |
partition for heavy write areas inside /usr ? |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
> * Some people want a read-only /usr |
| 59 |
Yes, that's only reasonable argument here. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
> * /usr/portage can get very huge and is often written to. With |
| 62 |
> / and /usr being on the same FS you really want to have |
| 63 |
> /usr/portage on a seperate FS then |
| 64 |
Even with separate /usr it's good to have separate partition for |
| 65 |
/usr/portage. You can have partition with small blocks and large no. of |
| 66 |
inodes this way. How does that prevents merging / and /usr ? |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
Cheers, |
| 69 |
Kacper |
Archives