On Monday, 12. September 2011 14:26:13 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer <grim...@gmx.de> wrote: > > On Monday, 12. September 2011 12:42:00 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > You say it was disinformation about /var. Care to explain why me > >> > and > >> > one > >> > other person read the same thing? It was mentioned on -dev. I > >> > was > >> > pretty sure it was and then another person posted they read the > >> > same. > >> > So, I'm almost certain it was said at this point. Surely we > >> > can't > >> > both be wrong. > >> > >> Where did you guys read it? Who said /var could not be in its own > >> partition anymore? What piece of code stops working if /var it's in > >> its own partition? Who is proposing that a separated /var will not be > >> supported in the future? > > > > Just have a look in /var/lib/* for example. > > I did mentioned /var/lib two paragraphs below. Do you guys respond an > email while you read it?
Of course I read the mails I answer! You wrote: "var/lib usually stores whole databases." And I said, have a look into it. You did? Could you explain to me, what /var/lib/alsa has to do with databases? Or /var/lib/dbus? > > You guarantee, that nothing of this stuff is or will be needed by udev? > > I don't have to. Contrary to most of the guys here (I'm not saying you > are one of them), I don't see the proposed change as "irrational". It > makes complete sense (you actually mention several reasons why it > makes sense in others emails here to Alan and others). No, I don't say, "it makes sense", because it does not. I know, *why* this is done, that's something completly different from "making sense". What makes sense is fixing udev. Marking devices as "not present", because scripts are not available, is bad design. > Requiring /var to be on / would not make sense. Yes. Makes no sense. And now *look* into /var/lib. You guarantee, nothing in there is or will be needed by udev? > Even more: then the > idea of /run and /lock on / would be completely insane, if eventually > they would require a non separated /var. The proposal of /run and > /lock on / is exactly to allow /var to be on its own partition on te > foreseeable future. > > >> The thread I post talks about /var/run and /var/lock needing to be > >> symbolic links to /run and /lock, but AFAIK (and I tend to follow this > >> sort of things) /var not only can be in its own partition, it is the > >> recommended setup. > > > > Yes. Until this dev has his next brilliant idea. > > Give them some credit. This whole lot of changes is not the imposition > of some crazy dev. Is the result of years of the Open Source stack > evolving, and writing the code that implements a design. I give him credits. I don't think, he is an idiot. But I really think, the design is bad and needs to be fixed. Regards, Michael
