1 |
Hi Mike, |
2 |
|
3 |
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 09:41:34PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
4 |
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:46:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
5 |
> > On Friday 04 May 2012 19:06:37 William Hubbs wrote: |
6 |
> > > If you use an initramfs to pre-mount /usr, all of these issues are moot |
7 |
> > > and things just work (tm). Mike's sep-usr use flag option on busybox |
8 |
> > > may do this, but see below. |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > - Separate /usr without initramfs blocks the /usr merge. |
11 |
> > > In my original request to have your vote reviewed, I pointed out the |
12 |
> > > document which asserts that the /usr merge is a good thing and pointed |
13 |
> > > out the thread in which we discussed it on -dev. The arguments |
14 |
> > > supporting it are strong, and I haven't seen any technical argument |
15 |
> > > against it that would not be addressed by using an initramfs with |
16 |
> > > separate /usr. If you are using an initramfs, you will never know |
17 |
> > > when the /usr merge happens, but if you are using something like |
18 |
> > > Mike's option your system is not compatible with the merge. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > why exactly do you say that ? i already explained that busybox[sep-usr] works |
21 |
> > perfectly fine in a /usr-merged world. the /ginit static ELF literally needs |
22 |
> > nothing else in the system to work. you could boot a rootfs where the only |
23 |
> > thing in / was ginit and it wouldn't be a problem. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Ah ok, maybe this is the answer then. That's why I said above that I |
26 |
> wasn't sure. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> If you are installing the ginit binary directly in /, we may be good |
29 |
> to go. :-) |
30 |
|
31 |
This is pretty slick. I'm running with an initramfs, but I may test your |
32 |
code here in a few. |
33 |
|
34 |
Also, I think I found something I'm going to send you a patch for. I'll |
35 |
handle that in private email though. |
36 |
|
37 |
William |