-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 04-08-2011 07:55, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 08/04/2011 05:30 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 10:27:27 +0300 <snip> >> So, let's sum up a little. >> >> The most common argument against separate /usr requiring a proper >> initramfs is 'it works now, thus it's great'. That is practically >> understandable that people don't like to switch things upside down >> like that, especially when machines are not locally reachable. >> >> What's the exact differences between an initramfs and an early >> bootup setup in rootfs? As I see it: - initramfs is a small fs >> which is used for a short while on boot, to setup the system >> necessarily for the early bootup sequence, - while initial rootfs >> is a rather large piece of fs which is supposed to contain random >> stuff necessary for the early bootup to be able to proceed and >> mount the necessary remaining stuff before the actual bootup >> begins. And we're mostly stuck with it for the whole runtime. >> >> As I see it, I see no reason to keep forcing things like complete >> glibc, ncurses and the whole other lot of libraries for the early >> bootup if all needed is some kind of minimal 'mount' program (for >> instance). >> >> In the ol' days I tried building a NFS-shared system and the main >> problem was that some of early run tools relied heavily on the >> local system libs and files before they were replaced by NFS >> mounts. And I had to keep them in sync manually which is not the >> most comfortable thing. >> >> I don't see how trying to fit the best set of libs and files into >> rootfs can solve it. You either want for the system to be clean or >> weirdly split to support various possible configurations. And >> decide which are not 'weird enough' not to support. >> >> And really, most of the things about separate /usr are hacks which >> were introduced because the system was incapable of a proper >> rootfs. Read-only /usr should be read-only rootfs with writable >> mounts on top of it. NFS-mounted /usr should be the whole system >> part network-mounted (which would be easier if everything went into >> /usr rather than being split).
> It seems what we need is an migration plan. Sending out a Portage > News item, and correcting documentation as first step. > > Then giving people enough time to migrate. This would give us plenty > of time to work on the details for moving the files over from / to > /usr. Again, not all of us are willing to migrate away from a separate /usr partition, least of all when that is being "imposed" by some people trying to "shove" their pet projects to others and when we don't agree with or acknowledge the arguments. > It seems non-problematic for new installs, as stages could ship the > symlinks and files get installed to /usr through them, even before > the packages are changed. The symlinks will have to be part of baselayout as files get into stages through packages and not through catalyst. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJOOn/LAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPOQsP+we6tifTVnCXqr46ajXa2Xft NqXhJfxmONGbbhfDYPhoNiGK5ovojpoDncKEE0t158X35QfLRjqFqrudbPDUNzrh /zEJmQYacZckyMT866PE2iJBovEA5ZBnXB8y6RBHJLH3ky5/dO8R92jHSnNihi1y u639+dpRHP6cRQIk9i2sEHaph+bZo6e3X+GCT6FL63m4sNDSBfJGo4wtMewp/aDD HS2Ya41WAt+SYA131QLcVwLhyDz7sRdQm1iR7W06iScMxgE/mKHF9S25NKMYf+H+ Qtd+PF1SLcxC1lKztPsmNTr1lpDLlAoO5OQzpOnXoPmCWvuzBVyrHfSPo+cxQOFM 6VA0mjdNODS4gbEL5Fu8Q/Asf3/byJ7gBOfLNuHkMksMfLSy/O0KXjx3fnmpj1a0 yXlt+iuer7z5rwuz7ZfXNCmw0DWzuMOUimz1jz0pUwTzXDD9zZJXKHOt/RR4oQb8 NLldmh8YBcl17r6l60H49GWyL8YiIhQetBZuNi9+Pm72o3vVsKmCnyXHP1Cf0CsQ ziVy4+Lub2qSSQfndrTHnJ6rDIDFSLT4iZYRDJmlf6Mhrk7abogze/s0Vgfkfrfl yJVNVPG3Evk4d1qIFROSmQhhu44EOkufhijYvytpCHeNLvWUupeaMZOchX6QUXp4 4FhE/udxLI1zpQtTHLbJ =DhRY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
