| 1 |
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:57:14AM +0000, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 11:46:00 +0100 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > It's important to consider the timeline here. Separate /usr was |
| 5 |
> > accidentally broken by a sudden increase in dependencies from base |
| 6 |
> > system packages to desktopy things. It was only later that certain |
| 7 |
> > people decided that "oh, separate /usr is a bad idea anyway", and they |
| 8 |
> > did so because they couldn't figure out how to fix the mess they'd |
| 9 |
> > caused. This is very much a case of carelessly letting the horse escape |
| 10 |
> > and then trying to convince everyone that no-one needs a horse anyway... |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> ++ |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I tend to agree with this due to the reasons posted in this thread. I |
| 15 |
think we should be very cautious about making a change that requires an |
| 16 |
initrd just for separate /usr. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I'm a co maintainer of udev, so let me see if I can come up with |
| 19 |
something when the next udev is released. I want to try to work out a way |
| 20 |
to do this in udev-postmount. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
William |
Archives