> From: Alan McKinnon [mailto:alan.mckin...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:14 AM > To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts. > > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:54:58 +0700 > Pandu Poluan <pa...@poluan.info> wrote: > > > > The idea of trying to launch udevd and initialize devices without > > > the software, installed in /usr, which is required by those devices > > > is a configuration that causes problems in many real-world, > > > practical situations. > > > > > > The requirement of having /usr on the same partition as / is also a > > > configuration that causes problems in many real-world, practical > > > situations. > > > > > > > I quite often read about this, and after some thinking, I have to > > ask: why? > > > > I've also thought about this and I also want to ask why?
To be honest, I was simply taking for granted that all of the other people on this list who made a huge fuss about this were not lying. I, personally, have never had a use or need for a separate /usr; I know how big (approximately) /usr is going to get and I give it that much space. I guess I'm fortunate not to have ever managed a server where the hard drives were so tiny as to make that impractical. This whole udev/initrd/mdev/etc problem, for me, has been little more than an entertaining diversion, since I've been using a supported setup from the start. However, I'm confident that there are legitimate reasons why some sysadmins use certain configurations which require / and /usr to be different partitions; I'm less confident that initrd is not the real solution to their "problem" but that's not really my call to make. I'm *very* confident that a dismissal of this issue as "the ego if one or two guys who happen to write udev" is a blatant oversimplification that does not do justice to the complexities involved in making modern hardware work. --Mike
