On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:00:39 -0600 Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:58:15 -0600 > > Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> So, Nuno, everything was fine until they started moving things to a > >> place where it shouldn't be. > > No Dale, that is just flat out wrong. > > > > There is no such thing as "place where stuff should be". There are > > only conventions, and like all conventions, rituals, fashions and > > traditions these are prone to breakage when things move on. Things > > move on because they become way more complex than the designer of > > the convention thought they would (or could). > > > > The truth is simply this (derived from empirical observation): > > > > Long ago we had established conventions about / and /usr; mostly > > because the few sysadmins around agreed on some things. In those > > days there was no concept of a packager or maintainer, there was > > only a sysadmin. This person was a lot like me - he decided and if > > you didn't like it that was tough. So things stayed as they were > > for a very long time. > > > > Thankfully, it is not like that anymore and the distinction between > > / and /usr is now so blurry there might as well not be a > > distinction. Which is good as the distinction wasn't exactly a good > > thing from day 1 either - it was useful for terminal servers (only > > by convention) and let the sysadmin keep his treasured uptime > > (which only proves he isn't doing kernel maintenance...) > > > > I'm sorry you bought into the crap about / and /usr that people of > > my ilk foisted on you, but the time for that is past, and things > > move on. If there is to be a convention, there can be only one that > > makes any sense: > > > > / and /usr are essentially the same, so put your stuff anywhere you > > want it to be. ironically this no gives you the ultimate in choice, > > not the false one you had for years. So if your /usr is say 8G, then > > enlarge / bu that amount, move /usr over and retain all your mount > > points as the were. Now for the foreseeable future anything you > > might want to hotplug at launch time stands a very good chance of > > working as expected. > > > > You will only need an initrd if you have / on striped RAID or LVM or > > similar, but that is a boot strap problem not a /usr problem (and > > you do not have such a setup). Right now you need an initrd anyway > > to boot such setups. > > > > The design of separate / and /usr on modern machines IS broken by > > design. It is fragile and causes problems in the large case. This > > doesn't mean YOUR system is broken and won't boot, it means it > > causes unnecessary hassle in the whole ecosystem, and the fix is to > > change behaviour and layout to something more appropriate to what > > we have today. > > > > The problems with that is these: It worked ALL these years, why > should it not now? I have / on a traditional partition which is not > going to resize easily. If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy. I > don't want a init thingy or I would have put / on LVM too. I made / > large enough that I would not fill it up in the lifetime of this > system but not large enough to absorb /usr. If I am going to have to > redo all my partitions yet again, I will not use LVM. I use LVM to > eliminate this EXACT problem. I got tired of running out of space > and having to move stuff around all the time. > > So, worked for ages, then it breaks when people change where they put > things. Answer is, don't change where you put things. Then things > still work for most everyone, including me. I'm not a programmer nor > am I a rocket scientist but even I can see that. If I can see it, I > have no idea why a programmer can't other than being willingly > blinded. ;-) > > Udev/systemd seems to be the problem. How do I come to that > conclusion, eudev people says they will support separate /usr with no > init thingy. Either the eudev folks are rocket scientist type > programmers and the udev/systemd people are playing with fire > crackers or there is a way for this to work with udev/systemd to, IF > they wanted it to work. Thing is, they have some grand scheme to > force people to their way of doing things, which includes a init > thingy. Since there is a way to continue with the old way, which has > worked for decades, guess what I am going to do? Yep, I'm going to > jump off the udev ship and onto the eudev ship. The eudev ship may be > old and traditional but it works like I expect. Now if others want to > stay on the current ship, works for me too. I'm just not liking the > meals served on the udev ship anymore. > > I might add, one of the reasons I left Mandriva was because of the > init thingy that kept giving me grief. If I have to use that thing on > Gentoo, the first time it breaks, I'm going to a binary install. If I > am going to put up with that mess, I may as well have something that > installs quickly. That was one thing I liked about Mandriva, install > was really easy. It still is. Ubuntu is too. Actually, they look a > lot alike to me. > > Everyone can have their opinion but I also have mine. This worked > fine for ages until udev/systemd came along. That's my opinion and I > don't think I am alone on that. > > Dale > > :-) :-) > Is this actually about something being broken like in "the code does not do what it is supposed to" or about something no longer being the tool of choice for everyone? -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
