Baho Utot wrote: > > On Sunday 29 January 2012 10:46:19 pm Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Sigh. >> >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA0OTY >> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge >> >> -- Bruce > > I believe LFS is now working in this direction????
Not yet. > Myth #8: The /usr merge will break my old installation which has /usr on a > separate partition. > > > Fact: This is perfectly well supported, and one of the reasons we are > actually > doing this is to make placing /usr of a separate partition more thorough. > What changes is simply that you need to boot with an initrd that mounts /usr > before jumping into the root file system. Most distributions rely on initrds > anyway, so effectively little changes. and we disable those that don't like it. > What where you saying about initramfs not being needed ;^) I have been thinking about this quite a bit. I believe upstream has lost it's way. One of the principles of Unix was always to keep things simple. The reason that we have a separate /bin /sbin /lib is so that other partitions can be mounted without all the overhead in /usr. Now that same capability is, for some reason, being moved to initramfs where there is a duplication of packages, and a large decrease in transparency and and an associated increase in complexity. Why? Just because something can be done, doesn't mean that it should be done. systemd is another instance of the same symptom. Instead of a few relatively simple scripts and a very simple init, we have a large opaque monstrosity. All this seems to be a product of "we are in charge, we'll do what we want" attitude. Just make the changes and everybody will follow. We are going away from community and towards an oligopoly to the ruin of open source. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
