| 1 |
Hi Andreas, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 2021/03/23 00:54, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Council decided years ago that we don't support separate /usr without |
| 5 |
>>> an initramfs, but we haven't completed that transition yet. |
| 6 |
>> Which doesn't imply that we deliberately break things. |
| 7 |
> That's right. Though we should at some point start thinking about an end of support for separate usr without initramfs. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Why? Because the number of required hacks and complexity will only increase, as will the number of uncooperative upstreams. It's called a strategic retreat. :D |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> My suggestion would be that the next profile version (21? 22?) declares separate /usr a broken configuration, and explicitly encourages devs to introduce all ebuild simplifications that are made possible by this. (Like this symlink - no more conditional code.) No more discussions about "not breaking things" at that point. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Why was it ever copied in the first place? For as long as I can recall |
| 14 |
(been using Gentoo since 2003) I've always been using a symlink here, |
| 15 |
not to mention a separate /usr (which has only been in the last year or |
| 16 |
so mounted from initrd along with /lib/firmware - which was the trigger |
| 17 |
point when it became too big to be contained on our normal / partition, |
| 18 |
the other fix would have been to be more selective in which firmware to |
| 19 |
install but that would be a higher administrative overhead). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
To this day I still believe that / should contain a minimal viable |
| 22 |
bootable system (give me a shell and just enough to perform basic tasks |
| 23 |
like activating LVM, repairing and mounting filesystems, and ideally |
| 24 |
some or another editor such as busybox vi is good enough, mostly |
| 25 |
everything else can go to /usr even with it being "split"). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I still don't see why a split /usr is a bad thing. In fact, there are a |
| 28 |
significant number cases where I've had FS corruption which I was able |
| 29 |
to recover without the need for additional bootable media (which when |
| 30 |
working remotely via IP KVMs can be difficult at best) due to "living in |
| 31 |
the past" as you say. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
There is no reason a symbolic link can't cross a filesystem boundary ... |
| 34 |
it's hard links that can't. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Kind Regards, |
| 37 |
Jaco |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> (Or to put it another way, I think we should stop wasting time and effort here just to be able to live in the past.) |
| 40 |
> |
Archives