1 |
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
4 |
>>> |
5 |
>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie<acm@×××.de> wrote: |
6 |
>>>> |
7 |
>>>> Hi, everybody. |
8 |
>>>> |
9 |
>>>> Hope nobody minds me starting a new thread with an accurate name. |
10 |
>>>> |
11 |
>>>> Which version of udev is it that has this nauseating feature of needing |
12 |
>>>> /usr loaded to boot? |
13 |
>>>> |
14 |
>>>> Somewhere in that version's source will be several (or lots of) "/usr". |
15 |
>>>> Just how difficult is it going to be to replace "/usr/bin" with "/bin" |
16 |
>>>> throughout the source? |
17 |
>>>> |
18 |
>>>> udev is part of the kernel. How come the kernel hackers aren't up in |
19 |
>>>> arms about this as much as we are? Or are they, maybe? In which case, |
20 |
>>>> maybe the kernel people would welcome an option to disrequire the early |
21 |
>>>> mounting of /usr as much as we would. |
22 |
>>>> |
23 |
>>>> Anyhow, I'd like to take a peek at the source code which does this evil |
24 |
>>>> thing. Would somebody please tell me which version of udev is involved. |
25 |
>>>> |
26 |
>>>> Thanks. |
27 |
>>> |
28 |
>>> (This would be my only post in this new thread: I think I have made my |
29 |
>>> point of view clear in the other thread). |
30 |
>>> |
31 |
>>> I have seen a lot of disinformation going on in the other threads |
32 |
>>> (like some people suggesting that /var would not be able to be on its |
33 |
>>> own partition at some point in the future). Just before everyone start |
34 |
>>> to wildy conjecture, please take a look at this: |
35 |
>>> |
36 |
>>> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken |
37 |
>>> |
38 |
>>> Also, a look at this thread is maybe justified: |
39 |
>>> |
40 |
>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/1728/ |
41 |
>>> |
42 |
>>> Both things are in the context of systemd, but it's related to the |
43 |
>>> discussion at hand. I know not everybody wants to use systemd, and |
44 |
>>> think Lennart and Kay are the root of all that is wrong and evil on |
45 |
>>> the world, but I will recommend everyone interested in the reasons of |
46 |
>>> the push for a recommended initramfs to take a look at the page in |
47 |
>>> fd.org, and the thread in the systemd mailing list. Even if you don't |
48 |
>>> agree with the reasoning, it is worth to take a look at it. |
49 |
>>> |
50 |
>>> As for me, I would say one last time my POV: Linux strives to be much |
51 |
>>> more than Unix, and that means do things differently. It will always |
52 |
>>> be capable of do anything that Unix does, and most of the time it will |
53 |
>>> do it better. But that doesn't (necessarily) means that it will do it |
54 |
>>> in the same way. |
55 |
>>> |
56 |
>>> And many of us don't take "but my config/setup/partition works now" as |
57 |
>>> a valid argument to restrain progress. |
58 |
>>> |
59 |
>>> Change happens. |
60 |
>>> |
61 |
>>> Regards everyone. |
62 |
>> |
63 |
>> You say it was disinformation about /var. Care to explain why me and one |
64 |
>> other person read the same thing? It was mentioned on -dev. I was pretty |
65 |
>> sure it was and then another person posted they read the same. So, I'm |
66 |
>> almost certain it was said at this point. Surely we can't both be wrong. |
67 |
> |
68 |
> Where did you guys read it? Who said /var could not be in its own |
69 |
> partition anymore? What piece of code stops working if /var it's in |
70 |
> its own partition? Who is proposing that a separated /var will not be |
71 |
> supported in the future? |
72 |
> |
73 |
> The thread I post talks about /var/run and /var/lock needing to be |
74 |
> symbolic links to /run and /lock, but AFAIK (and I tend to follow this |
75 |
> sort of things) /var not only can be in its own partition, it is the |
76 |
> recommended setup. |
77 |
> |
78 |
> Saying that proposing /run and /lock to be available at boot time |
79 |
> means that in the future a separated /var partition could be not |
80 |
> supported is, in my book, disinformation. /var/run and /var/lock (by |
81 |
> definition) are almost empty (in space). /var/lib usually stores whole |
82 |
> databases. The difference is important and relevant. |
83 |
> |
84 |
> Damn, this list is like crack. |
85 |
|
86 |
http://xkcd.com/386/ |
87 |
|
88 |
|
89 |
-- |
90 |
:wq |