| 1 |
On 30/09/2013 08:31, pk wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2013-09-30 00:04, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> It's the general idea that you can leave /usr unmounted until some |
| 5 |
>> random arb time later in the startup sequence and just expect things to |
| 6 |
>> work out fine that is broken. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> It just happened to work OK for years because nothing happened to use |
| 9 |
>> the code in /usr at that point in the sequence. More and more we are |
| 10 |
>> seeing that this is no longer the case. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> So basically it wasn't broke before stuff started to use the code in |
| 13 |
> /usr. How isn't that breaking? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>> So no-one broke it with a specific commit. It has always been broken by |
| 16 |
>> design becuase it's a damn stupid idea that just happened to work by |
| 17 |
>> fluke. IT and computing is rife with this kind of error. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> If what you are saying is true then *everything* is broken "by design" |
| 20 |
> if something isn't available at boot time (may be /usr, may be /var or |
| 21 |
> whatever). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I never mentioned /var at all. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Go back and read again what I did write. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 35 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives