On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:03:25 +0200 nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote:
> On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +0200 > > nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: > > > >> On 2012-12-18, Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> > >> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:08:53 -0500 > >> > Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > This sentence summarizes my understanding of your post nicely: > >> > > >> >> Now, why is /usr special? It's because it contains executable > >> >> code the system might require while launching. > >> > > >> > Now there are only two approaches that could solve that problem: > >> > > >> > 1. Avoid it entirely > >> > 2. Deal with it using any of a variety of bootstrap techniques > >> > > >> > #1 is handled by policy, whereby any code the system might > >> > require while launching is not in /usr. > >> > > >> > #2 already has a solution, it's called an init*. Other solutions > >> > exist but none are as elegant as a throwaway temporary filesystem > >> > in RAM. > >> > >> What about just mounting /usr as soon as the system boots? > > > > > > Please read the thread next time. The topic under discussion is > > solutions to the problem of not being able to do exactly that. > > Then I suppose you can surely explain in a nutshell why can't init > scripts simply do that? > It is trivially easy to create a circular loop whereby code required to mount /usr now resides on /usr. Which is the entire thrust of this whole thread. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
