On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Michael Schreckenbauer <grim...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Canek, > > On Saturday, 15. October 2011 02:02:13 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 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. >> The link goes the other way around. /run and /lock are the real >> directories, /var/run is a link to /run, /var/lock is a link to >> /run/lock. When the initramfs (or the init system) mount /var, they >> make the link. >> >> > 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. >> >> Yes, as I said in my last mail, if you need LVM, you need an >> initramfs. Remove the LVM, and you can have /var (and /usr for that >> matter) withouth an initramfs. Where/when did I say something >> different? >> >> >>> 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 . . . >> >> You can speculate all you want. Fact is, nobody has proposed that, and >> there is not even a single email suggesting that it will be necessary. >> On the contrary, the requirement for an initramfs or a /usr inside the >> same partition as / has been being discussed years ago; if you had >> followed the developers lists, you wil had hear about it months before >> it happened. >> >> Nothing similar has happened with /var, least of it /home. >> >> >>> 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_20749880f5bc5feda14148849872 >> >> 9fe8.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. >> >> Please do. >> >> >>> 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. >> >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/1337 >> >> That was on February 25, this year. *Eight* months ago. And the stable >> udev in Gentoo still "supports" (it really doesn't, but whatever) a >> separated /usr. >> >> > 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. >> >> It's called an "educated guess". Of course I could be wrong; but I am >> more than willing to bet a nice expensive dinner with anyone that it >> is not going to happen in the next ten years. Any takers? > > I would. But given the way udev people "solve" those issues, I don't. > If something on /var is needed during boot in the next ten years, they will > propose to move it to /. They do it with /run, they do it with /lock, they > will do it the same way the next time such an issue arises.
You keep speculating and speculating. When you have some evidence to sustain your claims, we talk. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
