| 1 |
On 8/4/19 12:03 PM, Mick wrote: |
| 2 |
> I don't know more about this, but it seems we are being dragged towards |
| 3 |
> a systemd inspired future, whether the majority of the gentoo community |
| 4 |
> of users want it or not. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
How is the /usr merger /directly/ related to systemd? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> In my view system binaries should not be thrown in the same pot as user |
| 9 |
> binaries and keeping the two separate makes good sense for those of us |
| 10 |
> who do not spin up 200 cloned VMs a second on a RHL corporate farm. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
What are you using to differentiate system binaries and user binaries? |
| 13 |
Are you using the /usr directory? Or the bin vs sbin directories? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Please elaborate on your working understanding. I ask because I want |
| 16 |
correctly understand you and speak to what you're talking about. |
| 17 |
Especially considering that there will still be the bin vs sbin directories. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> I'm not arguing against systemd, or merging all directories under an |
| 20 |
> equivalent of a $WINDOWS/ path, but it seems to me a gentoo system |
| 21 |
> architecture should retain the freedom of choice and flexibility it |
| 22 |
> has been famous for. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I agree that the user choice is *EXTREMELY* *IMPORTANT*! |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Retrograde steps like being forced to use an initramfs just for |
| 27 |
> retaining a separate /usr partition, should not be the way gentoo |
| 28 |
> evolves. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Agreed. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I am curious why /you/ want (the ability to have) a separate /usr file |
| 33 |
system. I know that I want to retain the ability. That being said, |
| 34 |
I've not needed it in quite a while. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I am also using a bit of a hack that I think could be (re)used to allow |
| 37 |
/usr being a separate file system without /requiring/ an initramfs / |
| 38 |
initrd. (I'll reply in another email with details to avoid polluting |
| 39 |
this thread.) |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> Setting up a USE flag to accommodate such changes would be more |
| 42 |
> agreeable for many gentoo users, rather than changing the default |
| 43 |
> set up. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Please forgive my ignorance. What was the default before 'split-user' |
| 46 |
was made global? I assume that 'split-user' wasn't a default. So, by |
| 47 |
my limited understanding, 1) it was / still is a USE flag and 2) has |
| 48 |
chosen the more historically compatible as the new default. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> NOTE: Please do not start a flamewar, I'm just expressing my opinion |
| 51 |
> as a long term gentoo user who prefers to use gentoo for personal |
| 52 |
> computing, instead of other binary systemd based distros. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
I'm not taking this as a flame. I'm taking it as an honest and open |
| 55 |
discussion to learn what others are doing / thinking. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
For the record, I'm largely okay with /bin being a sym-link to /usr/bin. |
| 58 |
However I do want /sbin to remain local to the root file system. I've |
| 59 |
supported multiple installs where /usr was a separate file system and |
| 60 |
needed the minimal system (not an initramfs nor an initrd) to fix things |
| 61 |
at times. I'm also quite happy without an initramfs / initrd. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
-- |
| 66 |
Grant. . . . |
| 67 |
unix || die |
Archives