Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?

[Marc Schiffbauer]

* Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto schrieb am 01.08.11 um 11:19 Uhr:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 01-08-2011 08:31, Eray Aslan wrote:
> > On 2011-08-01 10:23 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> that's my impression now too since nobody has managed to provide
> >> useful case for separate /usr, or they have been very vague
> >
> > I will switch if I have to but saying / and /usr on the same
> > filesystem is the better technical solution just annoys me.
> >
> > I understand if going against upstream and keeping them seperate is
> > not worth the hassle and noone steps up to do it.  But then we should
> > say so.  Please don't kid yourself (or others).
>
> I agree with Eray. Furthermore, please stop trying to reverse "the
> game". It's those that want to break existing policies and conventions
> that have to justify why they want to do that, not those that want to
> keep using what has worked for years. You may not need or like it, but I
> want to be able to use partition schemes like the following without
> needing to use an initramfs:
>
> /dev/md4                /boot
> /dev/md2                /
> /dev/sda1               swap
> /dev/sdb1               swap
>
> /dev/vg/home            /home
> /dev/vg/usr             /usr
> /dev/vg/portage         /usr/portage
> /dev/vg/distfiles       /usr/portage/distfiles
> /dev/vg/var             /var
> /dev/vg/vtmp            /var/tmp
> /dev/vg/www             /var/www
> /dev/vg/repos           /home/repositories
> /dev/vg/release         /home/release
>
> Also, desktop users that don't split the /usr path might not like the
> "stress" that /usr/portage will add to the / partition - not to talk
> about the size and inode constraints.
>
> With the above design, I have on a system the following disk space use:
>
> Filesystem                Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> rootfs                    9,4G  262M  8,7G   3% /
>
> I'm growing tired of how complex and over-designed desktop technologies
> that hide stuff from the users keep trying to break the "unix way" and
> convince us they're "awesome". No, I don't need or want *kit, groups
> exist for something. No, applications that do "magic stuff" with dbus
> and xml (and I like xml) on the users back and hide how X work aren't a
> "good thing(tm)".
>
> Finally, Gentoo's init system is and will likely be for a long time
> openrc, so stop trying to push crazy or experimental init systems - most
> with a seemingly "poor design" and unable to do what an init system
> needs to do (start and stop services).


I fully agree with you here!

I always considered systems with just one big / as badly designed.

It's simply not the unix way. Sure it makes some things easier in the
first place. But that does not mean that it is a better technical
solution.

-Marc
-- 
8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317  3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134