| 1 |
Am Mittwoch, 25. September 2013, 11:39:20 schrieb Ian Stakenvicius: |
| 2 |
> On 25/09/13 11:27 AM, Sven Eden wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Am Mittwoch, 25. September 2013, 11:05:24 schrieb Ian |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Stakenvicius: |
| 6 |
> >> On 25/09/13 10:51 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 7 |
> >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius |
| 8 |
> >>> <axs@g.o> |
| 9 |
> >>> |
| 10 |
> >>> wrote: |
| 11 |
> >>>> William, I think what Tom was mentioning here is that he |
| 12 |
> >>>> thinks a one-sentence answering the "Why" would be a good |
| 13 |
> >>>> idea to have in the news item, so users that don't have a |
| 14 |
> >>>> clue on all of these sep-/usr issues will get an idea of why |
| 15 |
> >>>> the change is being made. |
| 16 |
> >>> |
| 17 |
> >>> How about something like: Due to many upstream changes |
| 18 |
> >>> properly supporting a separate /usr without an initramfs has |
| 19 |
> >>> become increasingly difficult - despite all our efforts it |
| 20 |
> >>> already breaks in some exotic configurations, and this is a |
| 21 |
> >>> trend likely to grow worse. |
| 22 |
> >>> |
| 23 |
> >>> Rich |
| 24 |
> >> |
| 25 |
> >> How about changing "[properly] supporting a separate /usr without |
| 26 |
> >> an initramfs" to "supporting a system with /usr missing at boot |
| 27 |
> >> time" ? More generic, indicates the actual problem better. |
| 28 |
> >> Otherwise sounds great to me. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > Maybe some links to articles that explain *why* the so called |
| 31 |
> > "UsrMerge" was needed/done would be a good idea. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> This isn't UsrMerge tho. I think bring that discussion into the news |
| 34 |
> item would probably be going too far beyond its intended scope. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Yes, of course. It is just that the mentioned upstream changes are because of |
| 37 |
the merge, meaning boot relevant stuff is installed in /usr instead of /. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> [ Snip the rest ] |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Documentation suggesting a separate /usr isn't necessary (or rather, |
| 43 |
> probably, is only necessary for certain things, like /usr-on-NFS or |
| 44 |
> LVM-without-ROOT or crypto-/usr ) does make sense in general but |
| 45 |
> probably that discussion would be better done in the Handbook (or |
| 46 |
> linked to by the Handbook) rather than in the news item. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Yes, maybe the references about why upstream did/does change belongs on a wiki |
| 49 |
page or something like that. |
Archives