On 21/11/2018 16:24, Alessandro Selli wrote: > > So, you agree then that: I agree from your point of view for your single specific use case.
Generally I totally disagree, I manage a diskless cluster that depends on NFS mounted /usr. It doesn't matter to the cluster nodes that the package manager treats /bin and/usr/bin co-jointly on the file server host. e.g. /bin/mount is not version dependant on /usr Utilities locally under /sbin & /bin are useful on the nodes when something goes pear shaped and /usr is not available. > > 1. A separate /usr serves no practical purpose on a Debian/Devuan system; > 2. sharing /usr over NFS "is not practical" (no matter it's been done > for decades); > 3. "you can't split the package database between separate systems" > (whatever this means, who needs to split the package database and why?); > 4. having / and /usr constitute a "managed whole" is the only sensible > way to go; > 5. "there is no practical purpose to the separation as in (1) above"; > 6. "the separate filesystems can be treated as a managed collection. > It's still pointless though"; > 7. following another path other that the systemd/Free(lol!)desktop and > Debian one "It's simply impractical"? > > > Please let me know, because the answer would have deep practical > effects to me. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng