Re: [gentoo-user] udev + /usr

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie<acm@×××.de>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, everybody.
>>>
>>> Hope nobody minds me starting a new thread with an accurate name.
>>>
>>> Which version of udev is it that has this nauseating feature of needing
>>> /usr loaded to boot?
>>>
>>> Somewhere in that version's source will be several (or lots of) "/usr".
>>> Just how difficult is it going to be to replace "/usr/bin" with "/bin"
>>> throughout the source?
>>>
>>> udev is part of the kernel.  How come the kernel hackers aren't up in
>>> arms about this as much as we are?  Or are they, maybe?  In which case,
>>> maybe the kernel people would welcome an option to disrequire the early
>>> mounting of /usr as much as we would.
>>>
>>> Anyhow, I'd like to take a peek at the source code which does this evil
>>> thing.  Would somebody please tell me which version of udev is involved.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> (This would be my only post in this new thread: I think I have made my
>> point of view clear in the other thread).
>>
>> I have seen a lot of disinformation going on in the other threads
>> (like some people suggesting that /var would not be able to be on its
>> own partition at some point in the future). Just before everyone start
>> to wildy conjecture, please take a look at this:
>>
>> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
>>
>> Also, a look at this thread is maybe justified:
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/1728/
>>
>> Both things are in the context of systemd, but it's related to the
>> discussion at hand. I know not everybody wants to use systemd, and
>> think Lennart and Kay are the root of all that is wrong and evil on
>> the world, but I will recommend everyone interested in the reasons of
>> the push for a recommended initramfs to take a look at the page in
>> fd.org, and the thread in the systemd mailing list. Even if you don't
>> agree with the reasoning, it is worth to take a look at it.
>>
>> As for me, I would say one last time my POV: Linux strives to be much
>> more than Unix, and that means do things differently. It will always
>> be capable of do anything that Unix does, and most of the time it will
>> do it better. But that doesn't (necessarily) means that it will do it
>> in the same way.
>>
>> And many of us don't take "but my config/setup/partition works now" as
>> a valid argument to restrain progress.
>>
>> Change happens.
>>
>> Regards everyone.
>
> You say it was disinformation about /var.  Care to explain why me and one
> other person read the same thing?  It was mentioned on -dev.  I was pretty
> sure it was and then another person posted they read the same.  So, I'm
> almost certain it was said at this point.  Surely we can't both be wrong.

Where did you guys read it? Who said /var could not be in its own
partition anymore? What piece of code stops working if /var it's in
its own partition? Who is proposing that a separated /var will not be
supported in the future?

The thread I post talks about /var/run and /var/lock needing to be
symbolic links to /run and /lock, but AFAIK (and I tend to follow this
sort of things) /var not only can be in its own partition, it is the
recommended setup.

Saying that proposing /run and /lock to be available at boot time
means that in the future a separated /var partition could be not
supported is, in my book, disinformation. /var/run and /var/lock (by
definition) are almost empty (in space). /var/lib usually stores whole
databases. The difference is important and relevant.

Damn, this list is like crack.

Regards everyone.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México