RE: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Mike Edenfield]

> From: Alan McKinnon [mailto:alan.mckinnon@×××××.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:14 AM
> To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
>
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:54:58 +0700
> Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote:
>
> > > The idea of trying to launch udevd and initialize devices without
> > > the software, installed in /usr, which is required by those devices
> > > is a configuration that causes problems in many real-world,
> > > practical situations.
> > >
> > > The requirement of having /usr on the same partition as / is also a
> > > configuration that causes problems in many real-world, practical
> > > situations.
> > >
> >
> > I quite often read about this, and after some thinking, I have to
> > ask: why?
> >
>
> I've also thought about this and I also want to ask why?

To be honest, I was simply taking for granted that all of the other people
on this list who made a huge fuss about this were not lying.

I, personally, have never had a use or need for a separate /usr; I know how
big (approximately) /usr is going to get and I give it that much space. I
guess I'm fortunate not to have ever managed a server where the hard drives
were so  tiny as to make that impractical.

This whole udev/initrd/mdev/etc problem, for me, has been little more than
an entertaining diversion, since I've been using a supported setup from the
start. However, I'm confident that there are legitimate reasons why some
sysadmins use certain configurations which require / and /usr to be
different partitions; I'm less confident that initrd is not the real
solution to their "problem" but that's not really my call to make.

I'm *very* confident that a dismissal of this issue as "the ego if one or
two guys who happen to write udev" is a blatant oversimplification that does
not do justice to the complexities involved in making modern hardware work.

--Mike