On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:22:16 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On Oct 13, Salvo Tomaselli tipos...@tiscali.it wrote:
Some systems have quite a small /boot partition, I've had some problems with
a
/boot partitions nowadays are mostly useless, unless e.g. you are doing
something stupid
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:24:09AM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
unruh un...@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca writes:
On 2011-10-12, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
With all the sort of software continuously writing to /etc/?
Consider, e. g., /etc/blkid.tab, which is updated almost
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:27:03PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
share /usr between multiple systems today; but nobody does it, because
- Keeping your software on a central fileserver introduces a single
point of failure that you don't
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 06:08:32PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Oct 13, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
Or on devices where the firmware / boot loader doesn't support large
disks, or only limited filesystems etc. Please don't ignore other
people's use cases.
Can you point me at
On Mi, Okt 12, 2011 at 23:33:23 (CEST), Michelle Konzack wrote:
Hello Matt Zagrabelny,
Am 2011-10-11 11:21:30, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
There are good arguments in the following link (Marco provided it with
his initial email.)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
I
In data Thursday 13 October 2011 10:14:17, Reinhard Tartler ha scritto:
Note that an initramfs can be embedded directly into the kernel, so this
wouldn't require necessarily any changes to your bootloader.
Some systems have quite a small /boot partition, I've had some problems with a
server
On Oct 13, Salvo Tomaselli tipos...@tiscali.it wrote:
Some systems have quite a small /boot partition, I've had some problems with
a
/boot partitions nowadays are mostly useless, unless e.g. you are doing
something stupid like a RAID 5 root.
If you have a 30 MB /boot partition then just stop
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:22:16 +0200, m...@linux.it wrote:
Some systems have quite a small /boot partition, I've had some
problems with a
/boot partitions nowadays are mostly useless, unless e.g. you are
doing
something stupid like a RAID 5 root.
If you have a 30 MB /boot partition then just
Marco wrote:
On Oct 13, Salvo Tomaselli tipos...@tiscali.it wrote:
Some systems have quite a small /boot partition, I've had some problems with
a
/boot partitions nowadays are mostly useless, unless e.g. you are doing
something stupid like a RAID 5 root.
Or on devices where the firmware /
On Oct 13, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
Or on devices where the firmware / boot loader doesn't support large
disks, or only limited filesystems etc. Please don't ignore other
people's use cases.
Can you point me at some examples?
Excluding hardware which has been obsolete for many
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:32:46PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
least I think that it has more merit than the old move all to /...
How much complex would it be to implement
On 10/13/2011 05:12 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Marco wrote:
On Oct 13, Salvo Tomaselli tipos...@tiscali.it wrote:
Some systems have quite a small /boot partition, I've had some problems
with a
/boot partitions nowadays are mostly useless, unless e.g. you are doing
something stupid like a
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 06:08:32PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Oct 13, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
Or on devices where the firmware / boot loader doesn't support large
disks, or only limited filesystems etc. Please don't ignore other
people's use cases.
Can you point me at
On Oct 13, Luk Claes l...@debian.org wrote:
Isn't this what the whole thread is about: ignoring other people's use
cases?
I do not know what it is for you. For me, it is about understanding the
impact on Debian of implementing this.
I have received interesting replies which address valid
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 06:08:32PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Oct 13, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
Or on devices where the firmware / boot loader doesn't support large
disks, or only limited filesystems etc. Please don't ignore other
people's use cases.
Le Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 04:12:07PM +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
Marco wrote:
On Oct 13, Salvo Tomaselli tipos...@tiscali.it wrote:
Some systems have quite a small /boot partition, I've had some problems
with a
/boot partitions nowadays are mostly useless, unless e.g. you are doing
On Oct 14, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
If the merge in /usr is implemented in the base-files package, it means that
existing systems will not be automatically converted. So to support the
systems combining where the root filesystem is not supported by bootloaders
and
where the
Hello Wouter and *,
since August 2011 I run an Experimanental-Cloud with 20 IBM eServe x345
and 40 IBM eServer x335... Enough machines to play with it.
Since 3 weeks I now have my two 400V/32A/3P CEE Wallets for my two
Severracks in my office.
Am 2011-10-13 19:38:12, hacktest Du
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
Can you point me at some examples?
The default setup when choosing full-disk encryption in d-i.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
share /usr between multiple systems today; but nobody does it, because
- Keeping your software on a central fileserver introduces a single
point of failure that you don't have if you don't do the central
fileserver thing
That sounds
On 2011-10-14 02:28 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
My plan is to write a script which moves to /usr all the binaries in
/bin and /sbin (taking care of the few cases which actually are links
to /) and then converts the directories to symlinks to /usr/bin and
/usr/sbin.
After this I will try to
On 2011-10-11, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
I especially dislike moving /sbin/ and /usr/sbin/ to /usr/bin/.
That's namespace pollution, you don't want to have executables you can't run
due to them being root-only in your $PATH.
You could skip executables that you cannot run in tab
On 2011-10-11, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
What I don't buy is the your /usr will be your /System thing. We're
too much entangled with /var (the dpkg DB for instance), so that there
are parts in /var that are not at all host-specific but
On 2011-10-11, Ognyan Kulev o...@tower.3.bg wrote:
На 11.10.2011 17:32, Marco d'Itri написа:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
This reminds me a bit of the /usr/doc/ = /usr/share/doc/ transition.
This changes semantics of /usr directory. /usr becomes all shareable
files,
Philipp Kern tr...@philkern.de writes:
On 2011-10-11, Ognyan Kulev o...@tower.3.bg wrote:
На 11.10.2011 17:32, Marco d'Itri написа:
[…]
/usr/src - /usr/share/src
Probably depends if you want to support compile outputs there. I
guess some people compile their kernels there.
On 10/11/2011 04:32 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
least I think that it has more merit than the old move all to /...
i'd rather see a /$foo and /usr/$foo merger to /system/$foo, so we can
have the trichotomy /system, /local and
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net writes:
On 10/11/2011 04:32 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
least I think that it has more merit than the old move all to /...
i'd rather see a /$foo and /usr/$foo merger
On Oct 12, Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net wrote:
On 10/11/2011 04:32 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
least I think that it has more merit than the old move all to /...
i'd rather see a /$foo and /usr/$foo
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 06:56:25AM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2011-10-11, Ognyan Kulev o...@tower.3.bg wrote:
На 11.10.2011 17:32, Marco d'Itri написа:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
This reminds me a bit of the /usr/doc/ = /usr/share/doc/ transition.
This changes
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl (12/10/2011):
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 06:56:25AM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2011-10-11, Ognyan Kulev o...@tower.3.bg wrote:
/usr/include - /usr/share/include
Obviously broken. Includes can (and will be) architecture-specific.
With multiarch,
]] Ivan Shmakov
| The problem, AIUI, is that we start udev(7) before /usr is
| mounted. As udev is prone to spawn all the sorts of software in
| turn, we're either going to move more and more from /usr to /,
| /or/ to invent more kluges so that udev scripts would
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:50:32PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl (12/10/2011):
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 06:56:25AM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2011-10-11, Ognyan Kulev o...@tower.3.bg wrote:
/usr/include - /usr/share/include
Obviously broken.
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
The problem, AIUI, is that we start udev(7) before /usr is mounted.
As udev is prone to spawn all the sorts of software in turn, we're
either going to move more and more from /usr to /, /or/ to invent
more kluges so that udev scripts would actually
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/12/2011 11:28 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
This would be the practical effect, but let's try to not get away
too much from UNIX...
moving / to /usr will take a lot of time in the linux ecosystem. since i
prefere doing such a thing only once in a
Hi there!
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 06:24:09 +0200, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
unruh un...@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca writes:
On 2011-10-12, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
- read only system: more parts would be read only
? Surely you can make whatever you want read only now.
With all the
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 01:56:47PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
moving / to /usr will take a lot of time in the linux ecosystem. since i
prefere doing such a thing only once in a decade, going for the right
thing directly is better than going for something incomplete first.
Sensible.
oiow,
Hi there!
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 02:58:24 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
So let's look at the reasons against merging /usr in / listed in my
final summary. All of them do not apply to merging / in /usr, and
actually become arguments in favour of doing it:
[...]
- dmcrypt: more parts would not need
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Jon Dowland j...@debian.org wrote:
[...]
oiow, someone with time should just make that trichotomy happen in FHS 3.0.
I think there's a chicken-and-egg problem here: FHS want to document existing
practice. Someone needs to put work into a runnable concept OS
On 10/12/2011 05:42 PM, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote:
Did you know about http://www.gobolinux.org/ ?
gobolinux is iirc that project that aims to replicate what windows does:
having every application (and it's depends) in one directory so that
uninstalling is a matter of removing a single
]] Ivan Shmakov
| Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
|
| (With the assumption that /usr is on a separate fs from /): You might
| very well need to load some drivers (be it network, FC, USB, SATA or
| something else) and probe some bits (iSCSI auth?) to actually get to
| the right
On 2011-10-12, Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net wrote:
On 10/12/2011 05:42 PM, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote:
Did you know about http://www.gobolinux.org/ ?
gobolinux is iirc that project that aims to replicate what windows does:
having every application (and it's
Hello Matt Zagrabelny,
Am 2011-10-11 11:21:30, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
There are good arguments in the following link (Marco provided it with
his initial email.)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
I have read this too but what about systems which do not have an initrd?
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
]] Ivan Shmakov
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
(With the assumption that /usr is on a separate fs from /): You
might very well need to load some drivers (be it network, FC, USB,
SATA or something else) and probe some bits (iSCSI auth?) to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
least I think that it has more merit than the old move all to /...
How much complex would it be to implement this in Debian?
Would mv /bin/* /usr/bin/ and making it a symlink just
On 2011-10-11 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
least I think that it has more merit than the old move all to /...
How much complex would it be to implement this in Debian?
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:44:12 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2011-10-11 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
[snip]
Would mv /bin/* /usr/bin/ and making it a symlink just work,
without
the need to create temporary symlinks in every package as red
On Oct 11, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
Rather complex, I'm afraid. Especially as not all architectures even
support an initramfs, AFAIK.
I doubt this, since the initramfs can be embedded in the kernel image
itself (and indeed it always contains one, it just is empty).
But still, then
Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it writes:
On Oct 11, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
Rather complex, I'm afraid. Especially as not all architectures
even support an initramfs, AFAIK.
I doubt this, since the initramfs can be embedded in the kernel image
itself (and indeed it always
On Oct 11, Ivan Shmakov i...@gray.siamics.net wrote:
Saving a dozen of bytes in ${PATH} doesn't seem like an
astonishing idea, anyway. What's the point, then?
It is explained in the Red Hat wiki page. Try reading it again.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On 2011-10-11, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
least I think that it has more merit than the old move all to /...
How much complex would it be to implement this in Debian?
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Ivan Shmakov i...@gray.siamics.net wrote:
Saving a dozen of bytes in ${PATH} doesn't seem like an
astonishing idea, anyway. What's the point, then?
There are good arguments in the following link (Marco provided it with
his initial email.)
On Oct 11, unruh un...@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca wrote:
That would be fine if /usr is always on the root partition. However many
Feel free to come back after actually reading the linked page.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it writes:
On Oct 11, Ivan Shmakov i...@gray.siamics.net wrote:
Saving a dozen of bytes in ${PATH} doesn't seem like an
astonishing idea, anyway. What's the point, then?
It is explained in the Red Hat wiki page. Try reading it again.
Indeed, I've just
Le mardi 11 octobre 2011 à 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
least I think that it has more merit than the old move all to /...
We already discussed the idea of dropping support for a separate /usr,
and the outcome was a
На 11.10.2011 17:32, Marco d'Itri написа:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
This reminds me a bit of the /usr/doc/ = /usr/share/doc/ transition.
This changes semantics of /usr directory. /usr becomes all shareable
files, /usr/share - all shareable architecture-independant
On Oct 11, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le mardi 11 octobre 2011 à 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
least I think that it has more merit than the old move all to /...
We already discussed the idea of dropping
Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it writes:
On Oct 11, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le mardi 11 octobre 2011 à 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
least I think that it has more merit than the old move all to
/...
On 2011-10-11 19:48 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Oct 11, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le mardi 11 octobre 2011 à 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
least I think that it has more merit than the old move all
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 01:13:38AM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it writes:
On Oct 11, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le mardi 11 octobre 2011 à 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
On 11/10/11 20:28, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 01:13:38AM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
Marco d'Itrim...@linux.it writes:
On Oct 11, Josselin Mouettej...@debian.org wrote:
Le mardi 11 octobre 2011 à 16:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
I am still not 100% persuaded that this
Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org writes:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 01:13:38AM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it writes:
[…]
No, we discussed the idea of merging /usr in / (to which I was
opposed myself as well). This is a different concept.
The only significant
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:32:46PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
I especially dislike moving /sbin/ and /usr/sbin/ to /usr/bin/.
That's namespace pollution, you don't want to have executables you can't run
due to them being root-only in your $PATH.
Marco d'Itri dijo [Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:32:46PM +0200]:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
I am still not 100% persuaded that this would be easy to do, but at
least I think that it has more merit than the old move all to /...
How much complex would it be to implement this
On Oct 11, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:32:46PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
I especially dislike moving /sbin/ and /usr/sbin/ to /usr/bin/.
I do not like this either, but it is not required.
--
ciao,
Marco
On Oct 11, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
We already discussed the idea of dropping support for a separate /usr,
and the outcome was a broad consensus for keeping things this way.
No, we discussed the idea of merging /usr in / (to which I was opposed
myself as well).
This is a
On 2011-10-12, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
--zx4FCpZtqtKETZ7O
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Oct 11, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
We already discussed the idea of dropping support for a
unruh un...@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca writes:
On 2011-10-12, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
[…]
So let's look at the reasons against merging /usr in / listed in my
final summary. All of them do not apply to merging / in /usr, and
actually become arguments in favour of doing it:
-
67 matches
Mail list logo
