| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Michael Schreckenbauer <grimlog@×××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Mittwoch, 7. September 2011, 23:33:35 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: |
| 3 |
>> > The more I think about this merge of / and /usr, the dumber I think the |
| 4 |
>> > idea is. As I wrote in an earlier message on this list, the initramfs |
| 5 |
>> > will be many times larger than the kernel itself. Indeed, my /boot |
| 6 |
>> > partition is only 32 MiB, and that will be too small to contain all the |
| 7 |
>> > extra libraries and programs to run the initramfs script. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> I don't see any problem with an initramfs larger than the kernel. It |
| 10 |
>> will handle a lot of stuff. But if you don't want to change your /boot |
| 11 |
>> partition, then don't upgrade to new kernels. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> How about accepting the fact, that there are a lot of things out there "you |
| 14 |
> don't see"? Get over it. People have told a lot of valid reasons. They might |
| 15 |
> not seem valid to you, but that's not their problem. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Relax man, I keep saying that is *I* who don't see a valid reason. |
| 18 |
That doesn't mean there is no valid reason; I thought that went |
| 19 |
without saying. Sorry if it sounded like I was invalidating all you |
| 20 |
guys reasons. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
My primary point was that, I *you* have your reasons to keep a |
| 23 |
separated /usr, then by all means do it. You will only need an |
| 24 |
initramfs. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Have you *ever* thought about machines, that are not x86 or x86_64? |
| 27 |
> Here's an intersting read: |
| 28 |
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/72769 |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
No, I haven't thought about them, because I don't use them. What it |
| 31 |
has to do with anything? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
>> Change happens. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> That's right. And sometimes these changes are simply bad ideas. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
If so you think, then write the code to support the *really good* ideas. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
>> >> > Mounting it read-only |
| 40 |
>> >> > seems the only sensible one, and then I think is better to go all |
| 41 |
>> >> > the way and mount / read-only. |
| 42 |
>> >> |
| 43 |
>> >> Putting /etc on a read-only filesystem seems a really bad idea. |
| 44 |
>> > |
| 45 |
>> > To say the least. |
| 46 |
>> |
| 47 |
>> It works, and it makes life easier for upstream. Which are the ones |
| 48 |
>> writting the code. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> Hu? There's one upstream writing all the code for all the stuff we use? That's |
| 51 |
> news to me. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Well, in this case by "upstream" I was meaning the Gentoo devs. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Regards. |
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
| 58 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
| 59 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
Archives