On Wednesday 06 May 2009 03:39:40 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:36:02PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
/usr is too much work and no
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 06:25:07AM +1000, Kel Modderman wrote:
On Wednesday 06 May 2009 03:39:40 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:36:02PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
prominent developers of other
Marco d'Itri wrote:
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
/usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
(not Ubuntu, not Fedora, not SuSE).
BTW, last month
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:38:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
it is the principle of the thing. /root is the home directory
for the root user. Home directories are mutable, programs may store
configuration files there, as may the user, by themselves. The root
user should not
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:38:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
it is the principle of the thing. /root is the home directory
for the root user. Home directories are mutable, programs may store
configuration files there, as may the user, by themselves. The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Am Do den 14. Mai 2009 um 14:01 schrieb Gabor Gombas:
I fail to see how root is different to any other random user in this
regard. If you want / to be read-only, then you should ensure that /home
points to something writable. The same thing holds
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 03:53:23PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:38:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
it is the principle of the thing. /root is the home directory
for the root user. Home directories are mutable, programs may
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 03:53:23PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
No, /root cannot be a separate filesystem.
/root is part of very basic system, and it is required for super user
when he/she is restoring the systems or doing some kind of administration
(e.g. moving filesystems, etc.).
Roger Leigh wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 03:53:23PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:38:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
it is the principle of the thing. /root is the home directory
for the root user. Home directories are
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 03:53:23PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
No, /root cannot be a separate filesystem.
/root is part of very basic system, and it is required for super user
when he/she is restoring the systems or doing some kind of administration
(e.g. moving
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 04:21:53PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
I totally agree that / (thus /root) could be read-only.
I pointed out to you that /root is required to be in the same
filesystem as / (FHS) and I gave you the rationale.
What's the FHS says is a little different:
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 04:21:53PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
I totally agree that / (thus /root) could be read-only.
I pointed out to you that /root is required to be in the same filesystem as /
(FHS) and I gave
you the rationale.
What's the FHS says is a
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 02:27:52PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
There might also software very early in the boot process that need a
writable root-$HOME.
Nonsense. Any such software needs to be beaten severely.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
On Thu, May 14 2009, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:38:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
it is the principle of the thing. /root is the home directory
for the root user. Home directories are mutable, programs may store
configuration files there, as may the user,
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes:
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 03:53:23PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
No, /root cannot be a separate filesystem.
/root is part of very basic system, and it is required for super user
when he/she is restoring the systems or
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
Sure. I can hack things so that I have a writable home directory
for root while having a read only /. But then it is incorrect to state
that it works out of the box.
manoj
If you have a read-only / you need to have /var and
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 07:12:59AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
There is absolutely no reason why you can not mount a filesystem over
/root later in the boot process. I agree that /root should/must exist
at all time so one can login when for example fsck fails.
No, you must be able to
On Tue, May 12 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I don't know if there are more blocker. Oh, and /root is a home
directory; unless we move that, a read only / would affect root
negatively.
How so? Only thing I can think of is the bash history. But it is not
like we force a read-only /.
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, May 12 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I don't know if there are more blocker. Oh, and /root is a home
directory; unless we move that, a read only / would affect root
negatively.
How so? Only thing I can think of is the bash
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, May 11 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
A separate /usr *is* the way to go if you don't want any writes in
that filesystem 99.9% of
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:32:40AM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 17:36:02 +0200
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and
by prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a
standalone
On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
A separate /usr *is* the way to go if you don't want any writes in
that filesystem 99.9% of the time (i.e. when you're not doing an
upgrade).
A read-only / does the trick just as well. And if you don't want
writes to /usr you probably
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
A separate /usr *is* the way to go if you don't want any writes in
that filesystem 99.9% of the time (i.e. when you're not doing an
upgrade).
A read-only / does the trick just as well.
On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
A read-only / should work out of the box just like a read-only /usr. I
haven't installed a fresh one in a long while though so if you know of
problems speak up so bugs can be filed and packages can be fixed.
Last time I tried it, /etc was a
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:59:36AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
A read-only / should work out of the box just like a read-only /usr. I
haven't installed a fresh one in a long while though so if you know of
problems speak up so
On Mon, May 11 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
A separate /usr *is* the way to go if you don't want any writes in
that filesystem 99.9% of the time (i.e. when you're not doing an
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:20:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, May 11 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
A separate /usr *is* the way to go if you don't want any writes in
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 04:38:59PM +0100, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net
wrote:
There's a patch for /etc/mtab elimination; it's totally unneeded nowadays.
More than unneeded, it is absolutely irrelevant when using mount namespaces.
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net writes:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:59:36AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
A read-only / should work out of the box just like a read-only /usr. I
haven't installed a fresh one in a long while though
On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote:
No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which
is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is required for this.
Uhm, no?
mount --bind /usr /usr
First, you'd need a RO bind mount (yes, it exists, but your command
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 08:51:33AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote:
No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which
is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is required for this.
Uhm, no?
mount
On Tue, 5 May 2009 17:36:02 +0200
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a
standalone /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth
mentioning does it (not
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote:
No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which
is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is required for this.
Uhm, no?
mount --bind /usr /usr
First, you'd
On Tue, 5 May 2009 17:36:02 +0200
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and
by prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a
standalone /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth
mentioning does it
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 07:27:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, May 07 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, May 07 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
Those who want a read-only
On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote:
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 07:27:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which
is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is required for this.
Uhm, no?
mount --bind /usr /usr
On Fri, 08 May 2009, Peter Palfrader wrote:
wea...@intrepid:~/tmp$ mkdir foo
wea...@intrepid:~/tmp$ touch foo/bar
wea...@intrepid:~/tmp$ sudo mount -o bind,ro foo foo
wea...@intrepid:~/tmp$ touch foo/baz
wea...@intrepid:~/tmp$
bind mounts don't do ro.
I have been told, that starting
On 08 May 14:35, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote:
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 07:27:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which
is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is required for
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
/usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
(not Ubuntu, not Fedora, not SuSE).
I
Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net writes:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 06:49:47PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 17:24 +0100, Roger Leigh a écrit :
That might have been a traditional reason for a shared /usr.
However, the package manager can't cope with this setup since
Giacomo Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes:
Roger Leigh wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:41:06PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
Marco d'Itri a écrit :
I know that Debian supports this, but I also know that maintaning
forever large changes to packages for no real gain sucks.
A partial list of
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 23:38 +0200, Frank Lin PIAT a écrit :
Interesting. I thought 386 wasn't supported anymore (?)
AFAIK the kernel is able to emulate a 486 when running on a 386.
Afaik only when properly patched to do so and including glibc
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:10:54AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone
/usr?
There had been lots of responses to that.
Yes, the most repeated argument has been mount /usr via NFS.
So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone
/usr?
There had been lots of responses to that.
You havent presented any supporting your request, so why do you
want it? Please provide a detailed real-world case. A partial list of
invalid reasons is: - Some upstream
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
Those who want a read-only ‘/usr’ don't seriously try to leave it
read-only while installing or upgrading packages, do they?
But with RPM this works!
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in
This one time, at band camp, Josselin Mouette said:
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
Those who want a read-only ‘/usr’ don't seriously try to leave it
read-only while installing or upgrading packages, do they?
But with RPM this works!
If that is the case, that's
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Josselin Mouette said:
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
Those who want a read-only ‘/usr’ don't seriously try to leave it
read-only while installing or upgrading packages, do they?
But with RPM this works!
If that is
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 09:37 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi a écrit :
Stephen Gran wrote:
But with RPM this works!
If that is the case, that's about the only thing that works with RPM.
Or I missed what RPM do with read-only partitions?
Next time I’ll add the irony tags.
There has been a
On Thu, 07 May 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
Those who want a read-only ???/usr??? don't seriously try to leave it
read-only while installing or upgrading packages, do they?
No. And we hook apt to automatically remount stuff rw before it, and try to
remount ro after. It is easy, it works
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
Yes, the most repeated argument has been mount /usr via NFS.
Unfortunately, nobody yet explained how do they update the resulting
cluster of machines.
It's not particularly difficult. You update the system
On Thu, May 07 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
Those who want a read-only ‘/usr’ don't seriously try to leave it
read-only while installing or upgrading packages, do they?
,[ Excerpt from /etc/apt/apt.conf ]
| DPkg
| {
|// Auto
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, May 07 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
Those who want a read-only ‘/usr’ don't seriously try to leave it
read-only while installing or upgrading packages, do they?
,[
On Thu, May 07 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, May 07 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
Those who want a read-only ‘/usr’ don't seriously try to leave it
read-only while installing or
Ben Finney wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, May 07 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
Those who want a read-only ‘/usr’ don't seriously try to leave it
read-only while installing or upgrading packages, do they?
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:10:54AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone
/usr?
There had been lots of responses to that.
Yes, the most repeated argument has been mount /usr via NFS.
Unfortunately, nobody
Giacomo Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes:
- On large parallel systems, people use something more than a base debian
console installation.
Usually on net you have a complete copy for root, var etc
(in case of compromised computers. Very handy instead of reinstalling the
system)
So
Well, some people argued for that. Like you, I'm wondering how one
actually does this in practice! However there are some rather more
reasonable uses which have been mentioned:
- read-only /usr (for security)
- backups
- recovery (ability to mount root only; important if there's fs
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 16:25 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
Yes, the most repeated argument has been mount /usr via NFS.
Unfortunately, nobody yet explained how do they update the resulting
cluster of machines.
It's not particularly difficult. You
Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be writes:
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 16:25 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
It's not particularly difficult. You update the system master and
push that update into NFS, synchronizing any non-/usr data as you
need to across all the systems mounting that NFS partition.
I
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:30:14AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Of course the problem is that if you update on the NFS server, then
related /etc and /var files [1] will not get updated on the NFS client
machines and you need to propagate changes there.
One thing to remember is when you
Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 16:25 -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
It's not particularly difficult. You update the system master and push
that update into NFS, synchronizing any non-/usr data as you need to
across all the systems mounting that NFS partition.
Sure, but what is the point of doing that
Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 23:15 -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
I think it's pretty unlikely that *most* Debian machines are done that
way. There are a lot better tools for keeping large numbers of systems
in sync these days than simple cloning from golden images, and a lot of
drawbacks to the
On 2009-05-06, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Giacomo Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes:
- On large parallel systems, people use something more than a base debian
console installation.
Usually on net you have a complete copy for root, var etc
(in case of compromised computers. Very
Em Qua, 2009-05-06 às 00:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli escreveu:
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:10:54AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone
/usr?
There had been lots of responses to that.
Yes, the most repeated argument has been
On May 05, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
This is false for Ubuntu. Not only is it supported, but significant effort
was put into *fixing* a /usr-as-separate-mount bug in Ubuntu 9.04 as
pertains to wpasupplicant.
You may want to discuss this with Keybuk then, because he still
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 09:38:39AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Simple.
sarcasm
Sure, that's precisely what I'd call being properly supported in
Debian.
/sarcasm
In particular, from the replies to my question the picture I get is
that everybody is using ad hoc solutions to implement what some
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 09:38:39AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Simple.
sarcasm
Sure, that's precisely what I'd call being properly supported in
Debian.
/sarcasm
In particular, from the replies to my question the picture I get is
that everybody is using ad hoc
On Wed, 06 May 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Of the two one:
- We decide that mounting /usr remotely is a Debian goal.
If we do so, the mechanisms to make it work should not be as ad hoc
as this thread as hinted. We should provide a package explicitly
made to make this workflow
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
A few side notes:
* everybody overlooked the subtle theoretical problem that our
maintainer scripts can potentially do *everything* on the file
system and *everywhere*, and that they are written in a Turing
complete language (shell script). This means that you
[Stefano Zacchiroli]
The trick of fiddling the dpkg database on the client machine and
then run dpkg --configure -a there is indeed nice. But again,
requesting our users to do that, potentially messing up with the
dpkg database, is IMO not something we can call being properly
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:06:34PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
But system administration is per definition ad hoc solution.
This is our power. Why we give sources? Also to allow us
to tweak debian.
This is a utterly poor argument.
I can easily twist it against you by saying why we give
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:06:34PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
But system administration is per definition ad hoc solution.
This is our power. Why we give sources? Also to allow us
to tweak debian.
This is a utterly poor argument.
I can easily twist it against
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:31:23PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Anyhow, *you* don't understand the problem and you are probably the
only one thinking I'm selling vapor. From other people's replies I
conclude that the problem is quite clear and my vapor was so concrete
that others hinted
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 08:57 -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
Also, this procedure would be much more reliable if we said, in Policy,
that maintainer scripts are not allowed to fail if /usr is not writable.
(mount -o ro, SELinux, chattr +i, NFS root_squash, whatever.)
Would you support
On Tue, 05 May 2009, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I know that Debian supports this, but I also know that maintaning
forever large changes to packages for no real gain sucks.
I wonder what these are, and I hope you will start a separate thread with
that information.
So, does anybody still see reasons
Le 6 mai 09 à 00:30, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:10:54AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a
standalone
/usr?
There had been lots of responses to that.
Yes, the most repeated argument has been mount /usr via
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:56:20PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
In particular, from the replies to my question the picture I get is
that everybody is using ad hoc solutions to implement what some people
are pretending to be properly supported by Debian. I found it not
defendable, maybe
Philipp Kern tr...@philkern.de writes:
On 2009-05-06, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I think it's pretty unlikely that *most* Debian machines are done
that way. There are a lot better tools for keeping large numbers of
systems in sync these days than simple cloning from golden images,
Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 23:38 +0200, Frank Lin PIAT a écrit :
Interesting. I thought 386 wasn't supported anymore (?)
AFAIK the kernel is able to emulate a 486 when running on a 386.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
`-
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 09:36:56PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
- We decide that if you want to mount /usr remotely you are on your
own.
If we do so, we should stop using mount /usr remotely as an
argument for keeping /usr as a single filesystem.
What about the (many) arguments made
On Thu May 07 00:38, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
What about the (many) arguments made here about the *other* reasons to
have /usr a separate filesystem?
I've nothing against them, I was countering only this precise
argument. FWIW, I haven't seen that many, though the one about
read-only
Peter Samuelson pe...@p12n.org writes:
Also, this procedure would be much more reliable if we said, in
Policy, that maintainer scripts are not allowed to fail if /usr is not
writable. (mount -o ro, SELinux, chattr +i, NFS root_squash,
whatever.)
Would you support that policy? I suspect
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
/usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
(not Ubuntu, not Fedora, not SuSE).
I know that Debian supports this, but I also
Marco d'Itri a écrit :
I know that Debian supports this, but I also know that maintaning
forever large changes to packages for no real gain sucks.
Could you elaborate on the kind of large changes there are in Debian
to support this?
A partial list of invalid reasons is: [...]
How about: my
On May 05, Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bast...@gmail.com wrote:
- NFS
This is not detailed.
- for my wifi box (ie a 386 SX with 8MB of flash)
This is not real world.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 17:36 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
/usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
(not Ubuntu, not
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
/usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
(not Ubuntu,
On May 05, Stéphane Glondu st...@glondu.net wrote:
Could you elaborate on the kind of large changes there are in Debian
to support this?
I'd rather not change subject.
A partial list of invalid reasons is: [...]
How about: my /usr is shared by many machines over NFS?
Do you actually *do*
Marco d'Itri wrote:
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
/usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
(not Ubuntu, not Fedora, not SuSE).
I know that Debian
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
On May 05, Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bast...@gmail.com wrote:
- NFS
This is not detailed.
/usr NFS shared. Scientific grid use this stuff and it is real world.
But may be it is too big for debian ;)
- for my wifi box (ie a
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:41:06PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
Marco d'Itri a écrit :
I know that Debian supports this, but I also know that maintaning
forever large changes to packages for no real gain sucks.
A partial list of invalid reasons is: [...]
How about: my /usr is shared
On Tue, May 05 2009, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
/usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
(not Ubuntu, not Fedora, not SuSE).
Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 17:24 +0100, Roger Leigh a écrit :
That might have been a traditional reason for a shared /usr.
However, the package manager can't cope with this setup since
you have some components of a package installed locally and
some remotely for all systems using the shared part.
Roger Leigh wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:41:06PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
Marco d'Itri a écrit :
I know that Debian supports this, but I also know that maintaning
forever large changes to packages for no real gain sucks.
A partial list of invalid reasons is: [...]
How about: my
On 05/05/09 at 17:58 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
On May 05, Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bast...@gmail.com wrote:
- NFS
This is not detailed.
/usr NFS shared. Scientific grid use this stuff and it is real world.
But
On Tue, May 05 2009, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 05, Stéphane Glondu st...@glondu.net wrote:
Could you elaborate on the kind of large changes there are in Debian
to support this?
I'd rather not change subject.
This is not a change of subject. You are starting a haevy duty
thread
Marco d'Itri wrote:
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
/usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
(not Ubuntu, not Fedora, not SuSE).
Do you mean that:
1)
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:36:02PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
/usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
(not Ubuntu, not
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:36:02PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
/usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
(not Ubuntu, not
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 05, Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bast...@gmail.com wrote:
- NFS
This is not detailed.
- for my wifi box (ie a 386 SX with 8MB of flash)
This is not real world.
It is. But as it seems you're living on a different world, so better don't start
touching the real
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
