On Saturday, 15. October 2011 02:21:18 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > 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_20749880f5bc5feda14148 > >> >> 849872 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.
My evidence is /run and /lock as stated in the mail you quoted. > Regards. Best, Michael
