On 11/10/2013 09:54, Steven J. Long wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:04:38AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> On 29/09/2013 23:41, Dale wrote: >>> Alan McKinnon wrote: >>>> On 29/09/2013 18:33, Dale wrote: >>>>>> that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news. >>>>>>> And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are >>>>>>> not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes. >>>>> If not, then what was it? You seem to know what it was that started it >>>>> so why not share? >>>>> >>>> He already said it. Someone added a hard disk to a PDP-9 (or was it an 11?) >>>> >>>> Literally. It all traces back to that. In those days there was no such >>>> thing as volume management or raid. If you added a (seriously expensive) >>>> disk the only feasible way to get it's storage in the system was to >>>> mount it as a separate volume. >>>> >>>> >From that one single action this entire mess of separate /usr arose as >>>> folks discovered more and more reasons to consider it good and keep it >>>> around > > Yes you elide over that part, but it's central: there were more and more > reasons to consider it good, and to use it. You said it. > > They haven't gone away just because some prat's had a brainwave and needs a > lie-down, not encouragement. In fact most of them are touted as "USPs" in the > propaganda we get told is a reasoned argument for ditching all our collective > experience. > >>> >>> That wasn't the question tho. My question wasn't about many years ago >>> but who made the change that broke support for a seperate /usr with no >>> init thingy. The change that happened in the past few years. >>> >>> I think I got my answer already tho. Seems William Hubbs answered it >>> but I plan to read his message again. Different thread tho. >> >> >> >> Nobody "broke" it. >> >> It's the general idea that you can leave /usr unmounted until some >> random arb time later in the startup sequence and just expect things to >> work out fine that is broken. >> >> It just happened to work OK for years because nothing happened to use >> the code in /usr at that point in the sequence. > > Actually because people put *thinking* into what things were needed in early > boot and what were not. In fact *exactly the same* thinking that goes into > sorting out an initramfs. Only you don't need to keep syncing it, and you > don't need to worry about missing stuff. Or you never used to, given a > reasonably competent distro. Which was half the point in using one. > > Thankfully software like agetty deliberately has tight linkage, and it's > simple enough to move the two or three things that need it to rootfs; it's > even officially fine as far as portage is concerned (though I do get an > _anticipated_ warning on glibc upgrades.) > >> More and more we are >> seeing that this is no longer the case. >> >> So no-one broke it with a specific commit. > > True enough. Cumulative lack of discipline is to blame, although personally > I blame gmake's insane rewriting of lib deps before the linker even sees > them, that makes $+ a lot less useful than it should be, and imo led to a > general desire not to deal with linkage in the early days of Linux, that > never went away. > >> It has always been broken by >> design becuase it's a damn stupid idea that just happened to work by >> fluke. > > *cough* bullsh1t. > >> IT and computing is rife with this kind of error. > > Indeed: and even more rife with a history of One True Way. So much so > that it's a cliche. Somehow it's now seen as "hip" to be crap at your > craft, unable to recognise an ABI, and cool to subscribe to "N + 1" > True Way, as that's an "innovation" on the old form of garbage. > > And yet GIGO will still apply, traditional as it may be.
I have no idea what you are trying to communicate or accomplish with this. All I see in all your responses is that you are railing against why things are no longer the way they used to be. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
