| 1 |
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 01-08-2011 08:31, Eray Aslan wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> On 2011-08-01 10:23 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>>> that's my impression now too since nobody has managed to provide |
| 10 |
>>> useful case for separate /usr, or they have been very vague |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>> I will switch if I have to but saying / and /usr on the same |
| 13 |
>> filesystem is the better technical solution just annoys me. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> I understand if going against upstream and keeping them seperate is |
| 16 |
>> not worth the hassle and noone steps up to do it. But then we should |
| 17 |
>> say so. Please don't kid yourself (or others). |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> I agree with Eray. Furthermore, please stop trying to reverse "the |
| 20 |
> game". It's those that want to break existing policies and conventions |
| 21 |
> that have to justify why they want to do that, not those that want to |
| 22 |
> keep using what has worked for years. You may not need or like it, but I |
| 23 |
> want to be able to use partition schemes like the following without |
| 24 |
> needing to use an initramfs: |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> /dev/md4 /boot |
| 27 |
> /dev/md2 / |
| 28 |
> /dev/sda1 swap |
| 29 |
> /dev/sdb1 swap |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> /dev/vg/home /home |
| 32 |
> /dev/vg/usr /usr |
| 33 |
> /dev/vg/portage /usr/portage |
| 34 |
> /dev/vg/distfiles /usr/portage/distfiles |
| 35 |
> /dev/vg/var /var |
| 36 |
> /dev/vg/vtmp /var/tmp |
| 37 |
> /dev/vg/www /var/www |
| 38 |
> /dev/vg/repos /home/repositories |
| 39 |
> /dev/vg/release /home/release |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Also, desktop users that don't split the /usr path might not like the |
| 42 |
> "stress" that /usr/portage will add to the / partition - not to talk |
| 43 |
> about the size and inode constraints. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> With the above design, I have on a system the following disk space use: |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on |
| 48 |
> rootfs 9,4G 262M 8,7G 3% / |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> I'm growing tired of how complex and over-designed desktop technologies |
| 51 |
> that hide stuff from the users keep trying to break the "unix way" and |
| 52 |
> convince us they're "awesome". No, I don't need or want *kit, groups |
| 53 |
> exist for something. No, applications that do "magic stuff" with dbus |
| 54 |
> and xml (and I like xml) on the users back and hide how X work aren't a |
| 55 |
> "good thing(tm)". |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> Finally, Gentoo's init system is and will likely be for a long time |
| 58 |
> openrc, so stop trying to push crazy or experimental init systems - most |
| 59 |
> with a seemingly "poor design" and unable to do what an init system |
| 60 |
> needs to do (start and stop services). |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> - -- |
| 63 |
> Regards, |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
> Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org |
| 66 |
> Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng |
| 67 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 68 |
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) |
| 69 |
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
As a user, I have /usr/portge on a separate partition as well. I was |
| 73 |
also planning to have a separate /usr partition soon when I redo my |
| 74 |
drive layout. It sounds like Gentoo is telling me I no longer have that |
| 75 |
option without having a initramfs. I guess I will have to decide |
| 76 |
whether I want to add one more thing to break to have a separate /usr or |
| 77 |
leave /usr on the / partition. |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
I thought Gentoo was about choices? It seems one choice is being |
| 80 |
removed or is it? |
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
Dale |
| 83 |
|
| 84 |
:-) :-) |
Archives