'Twas brillig, and Thomas Backlund at 31/10/11 17:06 did gyre and gimble: > Michael Scherer skrev 31.10.2011 18:07: >> Le dimanche 30 octobre 2011 à 14:19 +0200, Thomas Backlund a écrit : >>> >>> I'm saying moving the stuff that is _really_ needed, not based on "udev >>> might run"... >>> >>> well, thinking some more on it I guess the real design flaw (not systemd >>> specific) is using all of udev in init. Init should not care about more >>> than getting disc access (and probably network for pxe boots) >> >> That's the point that Lennart make, ie : >> "we used to have / to mount all partition and /usr to be mounted, now, >> we have initramfs to mount /, and then / to mount /usr, so it would be >> simpler to merge / and /usr" >> > > -ENOTCONVINCED
:) > Just have initramfs mount / and /usr, no need to merge. Yes, this is exactly what is intended, but it depends on the use case: For simple installs, such as on my laptop or typical "desktop" linux, then having separate / and /usr is something I've specifically avoided for just about ever (I sometimes have separate /boot for "complicated rootfs" reasons and I almost always have a separate /home, but other than that, I like to keep my desktops/laptops simple). In other words there just are not sufficient benefits in doing this. But on the server, especially on a farm of servers with a potentially shared /usr across several machines, then yes, keeping it as something that can be mounted by the initramfs is perfectly feasible. This is a specific use case that Lennart + Co are trying to design for. Col -- Colin Guthrie colin(at)mageia.org http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/