1 |
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:30:16 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> > Because you can't boot from an LV, so you'd than need a separate /boot |
5 |
>> > and an initramfs. Without LVM, you are unlikely to be able to resize / |
6 |
>> > or /usr as it is not usually the last partition on the drive. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> So, you guys want a separated /usr, but don't want a separate /boot. |
9 |
>> Awesome. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I want as much as possible on LVM, and no initramfs. A small / and |
12 |
> everything else on LVM fulfils that need. |
13 |
|
14 |
If you really want it, go ahead and code the support for it. The code |
15 |
for every single piece on the stack is available, and you have the |
16 |
right to modify it if you don't like upstream decisions. |
17 |
|
18 |
Upstream(s) don't need or have to care about what I (or you, or |
19 |
anybody) wants. They (for reasons that we may or may not agree) will |
20 |
decide what set of configurations will be supported. Don't like the |
21 |
decision? Use the source, Luke. |
22 |
|
23 |
>> >> Again, I don't see the reason for a separated /usr. |
24 |
>> > |
25 |
>> > That doesn't mean there aren't several valid reasons to do so. |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> I didn't say they were invalid, I say that *I* don't see the reason to |
28 |
>> separate /usr. The arguments exposed just don't convice me. But |
29 |
>> anyway, you will be able to do it with an initramfs. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> No one is saying YOU should change your preferred setup. Please do us the |
32 |
> same courtesy. |
33 |
|
34 |
I do: I don't want you to change your setup. Absolutely nobody is |
35 |
saying that. I'm truly sorry if thats the way I sounded (my first |
36 |
language is not English). |
37 |
|
38 |
However, if you don't want to change your setup, you will have two |
39 |
options: either you don't upgrade (which is feasible, if you limit |
40 |
yourself to security upgrades), or you write the code necessary for |
41 |
your particular configuration. We (neither you nor I) can force the |
42 |
developers (being udev, kernel, Gentoo or whatever) to write the code |
43 |
supporting configuration X or Y, no matter how "rational" it seems to |
44 |
you (or me). |
45 |
|
46 |
When upstream wants to changes stuff, I change my setup and relearn |
47 |
how to do it with the new technology/options. It happens all the time: |
48 |
we moved from devfs to udev, from OSS to ALSA (and then PulseAudio), |
49 |
from ipchains to iptables... I could go on and on. |
50 |
|
51 |
> want, what we need and how best to achieve it. How would you feel if you |
52 |
> were told that you had to separate /usr, install extra packages, go |
53 |
> through extra configuration steps and introduce more points of failure, |
54 |
> just to do what you are already doing? |
55 |
|
56 |
I will do it. I have done it. And the reason is that the kernel churns |
57 |
out a new version every 2 or 3 months, GNOME gets a new version every |
58 |
six months, and everything gets (usually) better so fast thatt you |
59 |
want to keep ip. And the only way to keep up with development, is |
60 |
sometimes you need to change your setup. |
61 |
|
62 |
Of course there are different setups. My laptop I keep it updated |
63 |
every week. Sometimes shit gets wrong: I fix it, no problem. A |
64 |
production server only gets security updates, and I keep a twin setup |
65 |
ready if something goes wrong updating. If an update is intrusive |
66 |
(say, I need to change /usr to the same partition as /), then I do it |
67 |
first on the twin, and when it's ready I change them and do the same |
68 |
in the primary. |
69 |
|
70 |
And life goes on. |
71 |
|
72 |
>> Then don't update. |
73 |
> |
74 |
> I can't decide whether this comment is arrogant or ingenuous. |
75 |
|
76 |
It's called "being in production". You don't upgrade your kernel in |
77 |
production, unless there is a security flaw that affects you. If there |
78 |
is a security flaw in NFS, and you don't use NFS, you don't upgrade. |
79 |
You don't upgrade Apache unless there is a security flaw. You don't |
80 |
upgrade *anything* if it's working. |
81 |
|
82 |
Want the new features? Guess what? You need to use the supported |
83 |
setups, or write the code for your particular setup. |
84 |
|
85 |
Regards. |
86 |
-- |
87 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
88 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
89 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |