1 |
Hi Canek, |
2 |
|
3 |
On Monday, 12. September 2011 11:35:13 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
4 |
> (This would be my only post in this new thread: I think I have made my |
5 |
> point of view clear in the other thread). |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I have seen a lot of disinformation going on in the other threads |
8 |
> (like some people suggesting that /var would not be able to be on its |
9 |
> own partition at some point in the future). Just before everyone start |
10 |
> to wildy conjecture, please take a look at this: |
11 |
> |
12 |
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken |
13 |
|
14 |
well, the culprit here is: |
15 |
"The binaries called from these rules are sometimes located on /usr/bin, or |
16 |
link against libraries in /usr/lib, or use data files from /usr/share. If these |
17 |
rules fail udev will proceed with the next one, however later on applications |
18 |
will then not properly detect these udev devices or features of these |
19 |
devices." |
20 |
|
21 |
Why doesn't udev queue failing scripts for later execution? It just assumes |
22 |
everything is in place in the moment it needs it. This is bad design for a |
23 |
tool, coming in so early in the boot process. |
24 |
|
25 |
> Also, a look at this thread is maybe justified: |
26 |
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/1728/ |
27 |
|
28 |
Same thing here. This all basically reads "We did some really bad design |
29 |
choices, now let's fix the surroundings." |
30 |
The following sentence really made me laugh: |
31 |
|
32 |
"> If so, what does LSB say to this new directory? |
33 |
|
34 |
Nothing really, they just document current common practice. We might |
35 |
request an update to LSB after it is used for a while and has shown |
36 |
that it is what we want." |
37 |
|
38 |
He does not know, if the thing he designed is the thing he wants. |
39 |
That's ridiculous! |
40 |
|
41 |
> Change happens. |
42 |
|
43 |
We already know this. |
44 |
|
45 |
> Regards everyone. |
46 |
|
47 |
Best, |
48 |
Michael |