1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:58:15 -0600 |
3 |
> Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> So, Nuno, everything was fine until they started moving things to a |
6 |
>> place where it shouldn't be. |
7 |
> No Dale, that is just flat out wrong. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> There is no such thing as "place where stuff should be". There are only |
10 |
> conventions, and like all conventions, rituals, fashions and traditions |
11 |
> these are prone to breakage when things move on. Things move on because |
12 |
> they become way more complex than the designer of the convention thought |
13 |
> they would (or could). |
14 |
> |
15 |
> The truth is simply this (derived from empirical observation): |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Long ago we had established conventions about / and /usr; mostly |
18 |
> because the few sysadmins around agreed on some things. In those days |
19 |
> there was no concept of a packager or maintainer, there was only a |
20 |
> sysadmin. This person was a lot like me - he decided and if you didn't |
21 |
> like it that was tough. So things stayed as they were for a very long |
22 |
> time. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Thankfully, it is not like that anymore and the distinction between |
25 |
> / and /usr is now so blurry there might as well not be a distinction. |
26 |
> Which is good as the distinction wasn't exactly a good thing from day |
27 |
> 1 either - it was useful for terminal servers (only by convention) and |
28 |
> let the sysadmin keep his treasured uptime (which only proves he isn't |
29 |
> doing kernel maintenance...) |
30 |
> |
31 |
> I'm sorry you bought into the crap about / and /usr that people of my |
32 |
> ilk foisted on you, but the time for that is past, and things move on. |
33 |
> If there is to be a convention, there can be only one that makes any |
34 |
> sense: |
35 |
> |
36 |
> / and /usr are essentially the same, so put your stuff anywhere you |
37 |
> want it to be. ironically this no gives you the ultimate in choice, not |
38 |
> the false one you had for years. So if your /usr is say 8G, then |
39 |
> enlarge / bu that amount, move /usr over and retain all your mount |
40 |
> points as the were. Now for the foreseeable future anything you might |
41 |
> want to hotplug at launch time stands a very good chance of working as |
42 |
> expected. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> You will only need an initrd if you have / on striped RAID or LVM or |
45 |
> similar, but that is a boot strap problem not a /usr problem (and you |
46 |
> do not have such a setup). Right now you need an initrd anyway to boot |
47 |
> such setups. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> The design of separate / and /usr on modern machines IS broken by |
50 |
> design. It is fragile and causes problems in the large case. This |
51 |
> doesn't mean YOUR system is broken and won't boot, it means it causes |
52 |
> unnecessary hassle in the whole ecosystem, and the fix is to change |
53 |
> behaviour and layout to something more appropriate to what we have |
54 |
> today. |
55 |
> |
56 |
|
57 |
The problems with that is these: It worked ALL these years, why should |
58 |
it not now? I have / on a traditional partition which is not going to |
59 |
resize easily. If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy. I don't want a |
60 |
init thingy or I would have put / on LVM too. I made / large enough |
61 |
that I would not fill it up in the lifetime of this system but not large |
62 |
enough to absorb /usr. If I am going to have to redo all my partitions |
63 |
yet again, I will not use LVM. I use LVM to eliminate this EXACT |
64 |
problem. I got tired of running out of space and having to move stuff |
65 |
around all the time. |
66 |
|
67 |
So, worked for ages, then it breaks when people change where they put |
68 |
things. Answer is, don't change where you put things. Then things |
69 |
still work for most everyone, including me. I'm not a programmer nor am |
70 |
I a rocket scientist but even I can see that. If I can see it, I have |
71 |
no idea why a programmer can't other than being willingly blinded. ;-) |
72 |
|
73 |
Udev/systemd seems to be the problem. How do I come to that conclusion, |
74 |
eudev people says they will support separate /usr with no init thingy. |
75 |
Either the eudev folks are rocket scientist type programmers and the |
76 |
udev/systemd people are playing with fire crackers or there is a way for |
77 |
this to work with udev/systemd to, IF they wanted it to work. Thing is, |
78 |
they have some grand scheme to force people to their way of doing |
79 |
things, which includes a init thingy. Since there is a way to continue |
80 |
with the old way, which has worked for decades, guess what I am going to |
81 |
do? Yep, I'm going to jump off the udev ship and onto the eudev ship. |
82 |
The eudev ship may be old and traditional but it works like I expect. |
83 |
Now if others want to stay on the current ship, works for me too. I'm |
84 |
just not liking the meals served on the udev ship anymore. |
85 |
|
86 |
I might add, one of the reasons I left Mandriva was because of the init |
87 |
thingy that kept giving me grief. If I have to use that thing on |
88 |
Gentoo, the first time it breaks, I'm going to a binary install. If I |
89 |
am going to put up with that mess, I may as well have something that |
90 |
installs quickly. That was one thing I liked about Mandriva, install |
91 |
was really easy. It still is. Ubuntu is too. Actually, they look a |
92 |
lot alike to me. |
93 |
|
94 |
Everyone can have their opinion but I also have mine. This worked fine |
95 |
for ages until udev/systemd came along. That's my opinion and I don't |
96 |
think I am alone on that. |
97 |
|
98 |
Dale |
99 |
|
100 |
:-) :-) |
101 |
|
102 |
-- |
103 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |