> On Apr 6, 2016, at 3:42 AM, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:15:58 AM CEST, Richard Yao wrote: >>> On Apr 4, 2016, at 9:19 PM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> All, >>> I thought that since the usr merge is coming up again, and since I lost >>> track of the message where it was brought up, I would open a >>> new thread to discuss it. ... >> >> Here are the violations: >> >> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs-3.0.html#binEssentialUserCommandBinaries >> >> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs-3.0.html#sbinSystemBinaries >> >> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs-3.0.html#libEssentialSharedLibrariesAndKern > > well, those are not violations: fhs mandates a certain set of binaries in > those paths; this is still the case with a usr-merged system. > > i thought the symlinks would be a problem, but fhs states: >> The following directories, or symbolic links to directories, are required in >> /. > > so, really, i dont see any violation there
Nice. They added that to fix it. > > >>> I don't think creating usr merged stages would be that difficult. I >>> think it would just be a matter of creating a new version of baselayout >>> that puts these symlinks in place: >>> /bin->usr/bin >>> /lib->usr/lib ... >> >> We will have users whose system configurations rely on the FHS complain >> about us breaking boot if we force this. > > > i dont think anybody is talking about forcing this > > >>> I put some thought also in how to nigrate live systems, and I'm not sure >>> what the best way to do that is. I wrote a script, which would do it in >>> theory, but I haven't tested because I only have one system and if >>> it breaks it the only way back would be to reinstall. >>> The script is attached. >>> Thoughts on any of this? >> >> >> This was invented in Solaris and copied by RHEL. The upgrade path for the >> /usr merge on those systems is a complete reinstall. Upgrading from RHEL6 to >> RHEL7 this Solaris 10 to Solaris 11 is not supported. The reason being that >> there are ways of configuring the system boot process with the original >> layout that break if you try using scripts to migrate to the new one. A USE >> flag for the /usr merge that is off by default would allow us to have both >> worlds without putting any systems at risk. > > that's what i'm actually more worried about: the fact they failed to have a > proper upgrade path doesnt mean it is impossible, just that it is not easy. > > only being able to propose usr-merge for new installs makes it useless for > gentoo imho: i, for once, use only 1 gentoo install for the lifetime of my / > disk... > > > note that being able to properly migrate is a *requirement* for having it as > a useflag Most systems would switch fine. The ones configured to depend on /usr not being mounted in early boot would not. That is the reason automatically migrating people is not the best idea. That being said, this is only useful for new installs where people want to take advantage of the Solaris way of doing management. It should have no benefit for existing installs. > >> If others are not willing to be advocates for those users that would only >> make themselves known after an a fundamental change has been made and people >> are determined to go ahead with this, I suggest having and testing a plan >> for backing out the change should the backlash from users after systems >> break be more than people can stomach. This is not the sort of change we >> should make without an "exit strategy". > > > ironing out that kind of strategy is the point of this thread :) > > Alexis. >
