I demand that Ben Hutchings may or may not have written... > On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 20:42 +0000, Philip Hands wrote: [snip] >> I've read all of these threads, but I'm afraid I'm still a little >> befuddled about the pros and cons.
>> Pro seems to be saving some effort for packagers when RedHat as upstream, >> say, makes changes that assume /usr is always available, that's clear. > This isn't specific to 'Red Hat as upstream'. It's simply very hard for a > general-purpose distribution to know all executables and libraries that may > be wanted by init scripts and daemons before all volumes are mounted, and > it can be disruptive to move executables between directories. I'd say exactly enough to mount /usr and to be able to do filesystem checks. So, for me, /sbin/mount, /sbin/fsck.ext{3,4} and the minimum necessary to support these. I keep *small* boot partitions, and I may have a few kernels in them; initramfs is, for me, bloat. [snip] > We're now debating what, if any, effort we should make to continue to > support running init scripts without /usr mounted. There is also > discussion of whether separate / and /usr partitions should be supported or > deprecated, but I think that's quite separate. If /usr gets mounted earlier, fine. I'm happy if / can be used without needing /usr for basic recovery. I fully intend to continue with lilo, separate /usr and no initramfs/initrd. I *may* decide to stop using a separate /usr should I need to replace hardware – but probably not before then. I will NOT use an initramfs just to have /usr mounted early enough. [snip] -- | _ | Darren Salt, using Debian GNU/Linux (and Android) | ( ) | | X | ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail | / \ | http://www.asciiribbon.org/ Syntax is another name for conscience money. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/524936de54%li...@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk