On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 19:33:41 +0100 Didier Kryn <k...@in2p3.fr> wrote: > Le 01/01/2016 18:07, Steve Litt a écrit : > > On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 15:45:49 +0100 > > Micky Del Favero <mi...@mesina.net> wrote: > > > >> Daniel Reurich <dan...@centurion.net.nz> writes: > >> > >>> So the potteringisation continues... > >> If I remember well Solaris has /bin linked to /usr/bin since many > >> years, so linking /bin to /usr/bin is not a poetteringisation, or > >> almost it's not an original idea of poettering. > >> > >> Ciao, Micky > > Well, OK, if we're really going to discuss this... > > > > This *is* poetterization, regardless of what Sun or anyone else did > > before. It's supported by Freedesktop.org, and I think everyone > > here can agree that anything Freedesktop supports is anti-init > > choice, anti-simplicity, anti-modularity, and pro-systemd. > > > > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/ > > > > Those of you who have tried to lay down an alternate init system, to > > replace systemd, without the aid of a package manager, will probably > > agree with me that the toughest obstacle isn't udev, it isn't dbus, > > it's initramfs. I looked up the word "black box" in the dictionary > > last night, and they had a picture of initramfs. > > > > Hey, I'll be the first to admit that sometimes you need an > > initramfs. Maybe you have LUKS plus LVM plus software raid. Merge > > or not, you'll need to compile yourself one heck of a kernel to > > avoid needing initramfs. But for the very prevalent use case of > > Ext4, no raid, no LVM, no LUKS, no silly merge, and a few > > partitions, initramfs is as useful as udders on a snake. I mean > > seriously, in such a use case, you forego initramfs: boot to the > > root partition, run /sbin/mount -a, and bang, you have all > > resources available to you. But nooooooo. > > > > Initramfs does have one big benefit for the Poetterists: It > > provides a dark, safe place for them to start up their > > megacomplexities and call it magic. Oh, there are tools with which > > you can periscope into initramfs, but have you ever really looked > > at everything in an initramfs? It's a jungle in there. Just right > > for the Poetterists to incubate their plague. > > > > Now, the Freedesktop.Org to which I referred earlier in this email > > has a link to the following Rob Landley page explaining what they > > call the "historical reasons" for separate directories: > > jitsi_2.8.5426-1_amd64.deb > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html > > > > Note that Landley's #1 reason for merging is the existance of > > initramfs. Now I'm not stupid enough to call the author of Busybox a > > Poetterist. He wrote this in 2010, before anyone really knew the > > Napoleonistic aspirations of systemd, back in the days when a > > complex and opaque "early boot" wasn't a big deal. > > > > But now it's 5 years later, and that early boot black box is exactly > > where the Poetterists fester most virulently. > > > > In summary, if you accept the merge and /usr on a separate > > partition, you need initramfs. And if you have initramfs, you've > > just made it three times as hard to lay down Runit or Epoch or s6 > > or Suckless Init plus daemontools-encore plus Littkit. > > > > We all have to pick our own battles, and I'm not sure how much > > effort I'd make to roll back the merge. It may indeed be a good > > thing that only 3 changes are required to patch up Devuan for the > > merge. But make no mistake about it: regardless of its initial > > motivation, today the merge's primary beneficiaries are Red Hat and > > their proxies, Freedesktop.org and Lennart Poettering. > > > > SteveT > > > > Sorry Steve but I think you are making some confusion. > > Before initramfs, there was initrd for the same major purpose: > to load the necessary device driver to operate the hard disk drive. > initramfs is just more clever than initrd. The kernel developpers, > IIRC, have developped their own set of applications for use in the > initrsmfs/initrd. > > Busybox OTH was not developped for initramfs at all, and Rob > Landley was only one of many developpers of Busybox (he's now > developping his own alternative). The fact is that Busybox has > superseeded anything else in the initramfs because it contains a > whole Unix base system in a very small program which doesn't even > need a dynamic library. > > I doubt Rob Landley had Systemd in mind when he advocated to > merge /bin and /usr/bin. As a matter of fact Busybox installs its > symlinks in /bin, /usr/bin, /sbin and /usr/sbin by default. > > Didier
Hi Didier, Everything you say above is true, and none of it contradicts what I originally said. SteveT Steve Litt November 2015 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng