| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Steven J. Long |
| 2 |
<slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:37:53PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 4 |
>> initramfs is the new /, for varying values of new since most distros have |
| 5 |
>> been doing it that way for well over a decade. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Only it's not, since you're responsible for keeping it in sync with the main |
| 8 |
> system. And for making sure it has everything you need. And hoping they don't |
| 9 |
> change incompatibly between root and initramfs. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
You have ALWAYS been responsible for keeping / in sync with /usr. ALWAYS. |
| 12 |
Putting / out of sync with /usr will almost definitely result in breakage for |
| 13 |
practically every use case where / and /usr have been separated. You cannot |
| 14 |
reliably upgrade one without the other. If anything, it's easier to keep an init |
| 15 |
thingy in sync with /usr than to keep / in sync with /usr because our |
| 16 |
init thingies |
| 17 |
have automated tools for calculating what to put in them. / does not, and the |
| 18 |
problem of deciding what goes there is harder than with an init thingy. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Likewise, updating / without updating the init thingy, _if you dont know what |
| 21 |
you're doing_ is a recipe for trouble. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thus the analogy stands. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
This email is: [ ] actionable [x] fyi [ ] social |
| 27 |
Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no |
| 28 |
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none |
Archives