| 1 |
The Linux kernel also supports far more architectures than we do. That does not mean that we must support them too. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
With that said, how does changing things benefit/affect users, especially non-systemd users? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On Oct 14, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> Dnia 2013-10-14, o godz. 09:26:43 |
| 8 |
> Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> On Oct 14, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 13 |
>>>> I don't see a compelling case being made for why we should make this |
| 14 |
>>>> change apart from "all the other distros are doing it", and quite a |
| 15 |
>>>> few reasons why we shouldn't. I'm open to being convinced, so please |
| 16 |
>>>> tell me why this is good for Gentoo users. |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>>> So far I've seen a reference to a bug associated with a bunch of |
| 19 |
>>> systemd issues when it isn't mounted, and the point that many things |
| 20 |
>>> break in namespaces without the symlink, since /etc/mtab does not |
| 21 |
>>> reflect the state of the namespace. The latter in particular seems |
| 22 |
>>> like a pretty fundamental limitation - the very concept of /etc/mtab |
| 23 |
>>> is that mounts are global, and the design of linux is that mounts are |
| 24 |
>>> NOT global. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> Why should this not be treated as a systemd bug? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Is it a Linux kernel bug that it supports mount namespaces? Since |
| 29 |
> userspace clearly wasn't designed for that 20 years ago, so Linux |
| 30 |
> clearly has a bug supporting that! |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> -- |
| 33 |
> Best regards, |
| 34 |
> Michał Górny |
Archives