| 1 |
On Mar 13, 2012 9:05 AM, "Mike Edenfield" <kutulu@××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> From: Dale [mailto:rdalek1967@×××××.com] |
| 4 |
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 7:23 PM |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > I like that quote. I may not be dev material but I know this /usr mess |
| 7 |
> > is not right. The only reason it is happening is because of one or two |
| 8 |
> > distros that push it to make it easier for themselves. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If that's honestly what you think then I suspect you don't understand the |
| 11 |
problem as well as you believe. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The idea of trying to launch udevd and initialize devices without the |
| 14 |
software, installed in /usr, which is required by those devices is a |
| 15 |
configuration that causes problems in many real-world, practical situations. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The requirement of having /usr on the same partition as / is also a |
| 18 |
configuration that causes problems in many real-world, practical situations. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I quite often read about this, and after some thinking, I have to ask: why? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> The requirement to ensure that /usr is *somehow available* before |
| 24 |
launching udevd is a configuration that, I am told, causes problems in some |
| 25 |
specialized real-world, practical situations. (I am ignoring "problems" |
| 26 |
such as "initramd might possibly break maybe" or "that's more work than I |
| 27 |
want to do" as being the expected griping that always happens when you ask |
| 28 |
a group of geeks to change something.) |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
When one's handling enterprise servers, "might possibly break" is a 95% |
| 32 |
certainty of "you do that and I'll make sure to have a pink slip standing |
| 33 |
by." :-) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Rgds, |
Archives