On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:23:45 -0400
Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wound up being able to recover by doing a full reinstall of all
> > packages on the live system after mounting /usr into a
> > freshly-mkfs'd new lvm volume. If I'd taken the system offline, it
> > would have been much more difficult.
>
> You can always remount / in another LVM module. Really, what's so
> especial about /usr?
Don't get me started. Oh, wait, you just did.
Right, here goes:
An initramfs is optional becuase i can disable it in the kernel. I
would like to keep that optional.
FHS says I can have /usr on a separate partition and I would like to
keep that because it is a good idea.
FHS says I can mount /usr read-only if I choose, which is also a good
idea. On a shared jumphost with 570 concurrent users it's actually a
VERY GOOD ODEA and I'd rather not lose that facility thankyouverymuch.
I do not need, want nor can I find a valid reason to *require* an
initramfs. Systems boot just fine without them.
FHS says I can have the minimal software and tools to effect a system
repair on / and put then entirety of user-space on /usr. Everything
involved in this thread runs early in the boot process and I fail to
find a single convincing reason why /usr is involved at all. Anything
required at this point can simply be put into /bin, /sbin and /lib{,64}
which one will note is exactly how we have been doing it all along.
This whole mess has every indication of a singular maintainer who
cannot be bothered taking other people's needs into account and
foisting off his own personal preferences onto an entire ecosystem.
I think such people should take note of how Torvalds works and emulate
him as opposed to emulating say Drepper as a role-model for good
project mantainership practice.
--
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com
