| 1 |
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:30:16 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > Because you can't boot from an LV, so you'd than need a separate /boot |
| 4 |
> > and an initramfs. Without LVM, you are unlikely to be able to resize / |
| 5 |
> > or /usr as it is not usually the last partition on the drive. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> So, you guys want a separated /usr, but don't want a separate /boot. |
| 8 |
> Awesome. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I want as much as possible on LVM, and no initramfs. A small / and |
| 11 |
everything else on LVM fulfils that need. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> >> Again, I don't see the reason for a separated /usr. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > That doesn't mean there aren't several valid reasons to do so. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I didn't say they were invalid, I say that *I* don't see the reason to |
| 18 |
> separate /usr. The arguments exposed just don't convice me. But |
| 19 |
> anyway, you will be able to do it with an initramfs. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
No one is saying YOU should change your preferred setup. Please do us the |
| 22 |
same courtesy. Accept that we may have thought quite hard about what we |
| 23 |
want, what we need and how best to achieve it. How would you feel if you |
| 24 |
were told that you had to separate /usr, install extra packages, go |
| 25 |
through extra configuration steps and introduce more points of failure, |
| 26 |
just to do what you are already doing? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> Then don't update. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I can't decide whether this comment is arrogant or ingenuous. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Today's subliminal message is: . |
Archives