Hi Canek, On Monday, 12. September 2011 11:35:13 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > (This would be my only post in this new thread: I think I have made my > point of view clear in the other thread). > > I have seen a lot of disinformation going on in the other threads > (like some people suggesting that /var would not be able to be on its > own partition at some point in the future). Just before everyone start > to wildy conjecture, please take a look at this: > > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
well, the culprit here is: "The binaries called from these rules are sometimes located on /usr/bin, or link against libraries in /usr/lib, or use data files from /usr/share. If these rules fail udev will proceed with the next one, however later on applications will then not properly detect these udev devices or features of these devices." Why doesn't udev queue failing scripts for later execution? It just assumes everything is in place in the moment it needs it. This is bad design for a tool, coming in so early in the boot process. > Also, a look at this thread is maybe justified: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/1728/ Same thing here. This all basically reads "We did some really bad design choices, now let's fix the surroundings." The following sentence really made me laugh: "> If so, what does LSB say to this new directory? Nothing really, they just document current common practice. We might request an update to LSB after it is used for a while and has shown that it is what we want." He does not know, if the thing he designed is the thing he wants. That's ridiculous! > Change happens. We already know this. > Regards everyone. Best, Michael
