| 1 |
Hi Philip, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 06:50:49PM -0400, Philip Webb wrote: |
| 4 |
> Can you or anyone else answer my other question re the origin of the thread ? |
| 5 |
> -- ie is this a revival of not putting /usr on its own partition |
| 6 |
> or is it a new proposal to alter the file system in some other way ? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The original discussion was about the usr merge [1], which is taking the |
| 9 |
binary parts of / and putting them in /usr, then inserting symlinks in / |
| 10 |
to preserve backward compatibility. Yes, I'm pointing to a document on |
| 11 |
fdo, but the systemd guys have nothing to do with the /usr merge; it |
| 12 |
originally happened in Solaris. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I never supported the reverse merge that has been discussed, it was just |
| 15 |
brought up I guess as an example of a Gentoo user being able to do his |
| 16 |
own setup. Reverse merge meaning moving everything from /usr to /. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The thread has definitely gotten more out of hand than I anticipated. It |
| 19 |
is very hard at this point to separate the pros/cons, bikeshedding and |
| 20 |
personal preferences. That's why I requested that someone assist with a |
| 21 |
summary. :-) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
William |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/ |
Archives