| 1 |
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 2:03 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 09:57:15PM +0000, David Leverton wrote: |
| 4 |
> > William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > The reason the split happened is pretty straight forward, and every other |
| 6 |
> > > "justification" for continuing it was come up with after the fact. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > I keep hearing this, but I really don't see how it's relevant. I'm sure |
| 9 |
> > you'll find lots of things in your life that you use for some purpose |
| 10 |
> > other than what they were originally invented for¹, and there's no |
| 11 |
> > reason why /usr should be any different. All that matters is whether or |
| 12 |
> > not the newer reasons for having separate /usr actually provide a benefit. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> And I would argue that the maintenance cost of having separate /usr in a |
| 15 |
> general sense is much higher than the benefit it provides. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The problem with it is that it is next to impossible nowadays to define |
| 18 |
> what should go in / vs what should go in /usr. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> William |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Now it is difficult as too much time it was ignored. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
In the past it was quite simple, everything that requires a server to |
| 25 |
reach default runlevel. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The problem is that instead of telling users: "If you are using |
| 28 |
special user mode devices, such as bluetooth keyboards, please make |
| 29 |
sure /usr is mounted at boot", we enforce all that configuration, so |
| 30 |
now initramfs should contain all that once was / with much harder |
| 31 |
maintenance. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Alon |
Archives