| 1 |
On 30/04/12 05:31, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> Correction here; as far as I know the council did not mandate |
| 3 |
> separate /usr without initramfs. They just said that separate /usr |
| 4 |
> is a supported configuration. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Separate /usr is a supported configuration, which blocks the armwaving |
| 7 |
about "oh just use an initramfs then" as a solution. As apparently |
| 8 |
lessons about filesystem layout have been unlearned: |
| 9 |
Binaries that are essential for system boot, and must be available in |
| 10 |
single user mode go in /bin and /sbin, with their libraries in /lib. |
| 11 |
This allows for /usr to be: |
| 12 |
1) marked read-only for NFS mounts, which some of us rely on |
| 13 |
2) inside of an LVM2 container, allowing for / to be (very) small |
| 14 |
3) on a squashfs filesystem, in order to save space |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
My deployment relies on option 2, other sysadmins rely on option 1. |
| 17 |
Some of our users are very happy with option 3. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Trying to second-guess my motivation, and trying to undo unanimous |
| 20 |
council votes simply because your opinion is different, really has to |
| 21 |
stop. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I feel a lot better about vapier's pragmatic approach then I do about |
| 24 |
udev/systemd upstream's ability and motivation to support current |
| 25 |
systems. If you had any doubts about whether udev was part of the |
| 26 |
problem, consider what tarball you will have to extract it from in future. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Tony Vroon |
| 31 |
Server systems manager |
| 32 |
London Internet Exchange Ltd, Trinity Court, Trinity Street, |
| 33 |
Peterborough, PE1 1DA |
| 34 |
Registered in England number 3137929 |
| 35 |
E-Mail: tony@××××.net |
Archives