Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Dale<rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pandu Poluan wrote:
On Oct 15, 2011 5:49 AM, "Dale"<rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:15:24 -0500, Dale wrote:
A'right now. I'm going to start on hal and /usr being on / again. :-P
Jeez, 43 years on and you're still going on about it...
Dang, I was only a year old when hal came out? That just doubled my age.
It's closer to what I feel like tho.
I'm still not happy with /usr being required tho. That is still standing
on a bad nerve. Don't worry tho, I got plenty of those bad nerves. :-P
Do you know that there's a plan to move /var/run to / also? ;-)
Rgds,
Now someone on here swears up and down that /var isn't going to be required
on /.
/var != /var/run
/var != /var/lock
/var/run is going in /run, but /var/run (by definition) only contains
things like PID files and runtime sockets. In the same vein, /var/lock
also is going into /run/lock. I have acknowledged this from the very
beginning, and I have been pointing out that implying that because
those two (really small and bounded) directories of /var are going
into /run and /run/lock, it doesn't mean that the whole /var will go
into /. That is disinformation.
Nobody has even proposed that /var should go into the same partition
as /. *Nobody*, and the simplest proof of that is that nobody has
produced a single proof to the contrary. Not a single email, blog
post, or wiki entry from any system developer even mentions the
possibility of requiring /var to be in the same partition as /.
Whoever says that /var will be required to be on the same partition as
/ is either wildly speculating, or spreading FUD.
So /var/run and /var/lock isn't on /var? Even if they will be linking
to another location, the link has to be there for whatever program to
follow. If /var isn't mounted yet, there is nothing for the program to
find.
When I saw the messages about LVM and /var, that caused LVM to fail to
start. I wouldn't put / on LVM and wouldn't expect it to work without a
init thingy either. Thing is, based on it failing, you can't have /var
on a separate partition and expect LVM to start. So, if you use LVM for
/usr and/or /var, you have to have a init thingy even if / is on a
regular file system.
I'm telling ya'll, /home is coming.
That is just ridiculous.
I would have said the same thing about /usr a year ago. I'm not saying
it is coming next week but . . .
We are going to end up where we
can only have one drive in our Linux boxes for the OS and its relatives.
And so is this: more FUD.
That or we will ALL have to start using the pesky init* thingy.
More FUD: the current proposal (from Zac, the principal coder of
portage, and someone who actually wrotes code and know what he is
talking about) is this:
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729fe8.xml
It basically removes the need for a "pesky init* thingy", although for
the life of me I cannot understand why someone will not see the
technical advantages of actually using an initramfs.
I'll have to read his link later.
I got 7 acres of land here, complete with trees. If someone can find the
dev that started this mess, I can find some rope. Just saying. ;-) Oh, I
live half a mile from the river too. Makes for a good dump site. lol
I noticed the other day that when LVM tries to start, it fails. I have /var
on a separate partition here. It was complaining about something on /var
missing. So, you may be late in reporting this. I think it is already
needed for LVM if /usr or /var is on a separate partition.
Again, get the facts right. If you use LVM you will need to use an
initramfs. If you only use a separated /usr you will be able to use
Zac's proposal.
In no case whatsoever you will be required to have /var on the same
partition as /. Nobody has ever proposed that. /run and /run/lock are
not /var.
Regards.
No one proposed that /usr was required until just recently. Saying it
won't happen really puts you in a bad spot when or if it does. If you
know this for sure and certain, I want your crystal ball.
Just for the record, I don't want a init thingy because it is yet one
more thing to fail when booting. I was forced to use one when I was on
Mandrake and I hated it. It isn't the only reason I switched but it was
one reason. Now that same reason is coming to Gentoo.
Dale
:-) :-)
