Re: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

The debian installer should first loudly warn that having a separated / and /usr may break things in the future but not forbid it. With that in place, This is not true: you just need to use an initramfs. Ok, so it should warn that this setup will soon require to use an initramfs. I just

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 3 January 2016 at 03:52, ChangZhuo Chen (陳昌倬) wrote: > On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 01:23:14AM -0200, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote: >> It violates the FHS 2.3 standards. >> >> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_2.3/fhs-2.3.html > > Can you cite the requirement in FHS 2.3 which is

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 23:04 +1300, Daniel Reurich wrote: > On 03/01/16 22:33, Philip Hands wrote: > > Daniel Reurich writes: > > > > ... > > > Because systemd doesn't work without /usr on the root partition isn't a > > > good reason either. > > > > You are right ... it

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 23:04:20 +1300, Daniel Reurich wrote: >On 03/01/16 22:33, Philip Hands wrote: >> Daniel Reurich writes: >> >> ... >>> Because systemd doesn't work without /usr on the root partition isn't a >>> good reason either. >> >> You

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Martinx - ジェームズ writes: > Just tell the users that "/usr" isn't supported on a separated > partition anymore (tell users what will happen if they do this / > limitations), and do not touch anything else. During install, while > partitioning storage, print a message

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 03/01/16 22:33, Philip Hands wrote: > Daniel Reurich writes: > > ... >> Because systemd doesn't work without /usr on the root partition isn't a >> good reason either. > > You are right ... it is a poor reason, because it is pure fantasy. Then why is it that since

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 03, Eric Valette wrote: > The debian installer should first loudly warn that having a separated / and > /usr may break things in the future but not forbid it. With that in place, This is not true: you just need to use an initramfs. "I have always done this in a

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 11:04:20PM +1300, Daniel Reurich wrote: > >> Because systemd doesn't work without /usr on the root partition isn't a > >> good reason either. > > > > You are right ... it is a poor reason, because it is pure fantasy. > > Then why is it that since the introduction of

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

❦ 4 janvier 2016 00:03 +1300, Daniel Reurich  : >>> Then why is it that since the introduction of systemd is having /usr on >>> a separate partition suddenly considered evil and systemd complains >>> loudly about it. It always has worked and does work fine for me with

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 04/01/16 00:25, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 03, Eric Valette wrote: > >> The debian installer should first loudly warn that having a separated / and >> /usr may break things in the future but not forbid it. With that in place, > This is not true: you just need to use an

[Fwd: Re: [DNG] FW: support for merged /usr in Debian]

! Forwarded Message From: Steve Litt <sl...@troubleshooters.com> To: d...@lists.dyne.org Subject: Re: [DNG] FW: support for merged /usr in Debian Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 12:07:34 -0500 On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 15:45:49 +0100 Micky Del Favero <mi...@mesina.net> wrote: > If I remember well S

Re: [Fwd: Re: [DNG] FW: support for merged /usr in Debian]

On 2016-01-03 15:59:37, Svante Signell wrote: > Hi,  > > This message was not intended to be sent to a debian-* mailing list by > the author. However, since it is (in my opinion) of large interest I > got the permission to forward it to debian-devel. Hopefully, also some > of the debian-devel

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Hello Marco d'Itri. On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 01:51:45AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > We have a reasonably tested usrmerge package which can be used to [...] > I welcome your comments, but if you have any questions then please read > the FAQ first: > https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge >

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Marc Haber wrote: > See the discussion about EnvironmentFile which "should never have been > implemented" and "should be removed" on systemd-devel which resulted > in one side of the discussion being put on moderation (guess which one > got silenced). The ones posting messages like

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Geert Stappers wrote: > On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 03:53:03PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> On Jan 01, Ian Jackson wrote: >> With a merged /usr you would be able to serve the whole OS over NFS (and >> even share it among multiple systems

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Daniel Reurich wrote: > On 03/01/16 22:33, Philip Hands wrote: >> Daniel Reurich writes: >>> Because systemd doesn't work without /usr on the root partition isn't a >>> good reason either. >> >> You are right

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Eduard Bloch, on Sun 03 Jan 2016 14:06:22 +0100, wrote: > OTOH UsrMerge breaks some habits, i.e. going to /share/doc/foo feels UsrMerge proposed by Marco is the converse. It is *not* putting a /usr -> / symlink. Samuel

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Hallo, * Daniel Reurich [Mon, Jan 04 2016, 12:46:46AM]: > On 04/01/16 00:25, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Jan 03, Eric Valette wrote: > > > >> The debian installer should first loudly warn that having a separated / and > >> /usr may break things in the future but not forbid

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Hallo, * Michael Biebl [Sun, Jan 03 2016, 03:22:03AM]: > Am 02.01.2016 um 22:08 schrieb Marc Haber: > > On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 18:42:14 +0100, Geert Stappers > > wrote: > >> To me is this "TheUsrMerge" something like among > >> * "it is hard too to explain to have /sbin/fsck

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Hallo, * Samuel Thibault [Sun, Jan 03 2016, 02:15:31PM]: > Eduard Bloch, on Sun 03 Jan 2016 14:06:22 +0100, wrote: > > OTOH UsrMerge breaks some habits, i.e. going to /share/doc/foo feels > > UsrMerge proposed by Marco is the converse. > > It is *not* putting a /usr -> / symlink. I didn't say

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 03, Eric Valette wrote: > >This is not true: you just need to use an initramfs. > Ok, so it should warn that this setup will soon require to use an initramfs. It is the Debian default, there is no need to do this. > Same for your proposal : nothing really sound

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Hi, On 03.01.2016 12:25, Marco d'Itri wrote: > "I have always done this in a different way" is not a valid use case, > sorry. "Compatibility" is a very valid use case. Debian is famous for backwards compatibility and trouble-free upgrades. I can certainly see the allure of a tightly

Re: [Fwd: Re: [DNG] FW: support for merged /usr in Debian]

On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 03:59:37PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > This message was not intended to be sent to a debian-* mailing list by > the author. However, since it is (in my opinion) of large interest I > got the permission to forward it to debian-devel. Hopefully, also some > of the

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Daniel Reurich writes: > Ah, so it's actually packages that don't separate device configuration > logic from the application or daemons properly that has caused the > brokenness. Can we identify and fix the packages that cause this issue? No. Debian has basically

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 03, Simon Richter wrote: > > "I have always done this in a different way" is not a valid use case, > > sorry. > "Compatibility" is a very valid use case. Debian is famous for backwards > compatibility and trouble-free upgrades. Requiring to use an initramfs in some

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 03, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > First, it would be nice to have a preinst check if the system has any > running services that uses ProtectSystem and offer a choice to stop > (and restart) them in case having them running is really a problem... I will think about this, I

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Hi Marco, On 03-01-16 19:43, Marco d'Itri wrote: > Also, I am not really up to date on the modern debconf best practices: > can somebody recommend a package that I can use foor an example of > a debconf question that can abort the package installation? Not sure if it is really what you are

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 2016-01-03 17:03:02, Simon McVittie wrote: > […] For > instance, /bin -> /usr/bin is needed because otherwise #!/bin/sh would > stop working, […] This brings to mind—I wonder if the performance impact of having /bin/sh be read through two indirections (/bin/sh → /usr/bin/sh → /usr/bin/{dash,

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 2016-01-03 12:59:01, Tom H wrote: > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Geert Stappers wrote: > I don't like usr-merge because it goes against my historical > expectation that "/{,s}bin" be separate from their /usr namesakes and > contain binaries required for boot. OK, so

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 03/01/16 13:23, Eduard Bloch wrote: > I didn't say or assume that. It doesn't matter how you see it, in the > end all /usr/*foo* would be come /*foo*, sooner or later. Not in the UsrMerge design. Because UsrMerge deprecates /{bin,lib,sbin...} and treats /usr/* as the canonical location for

Re: [Fwd: Re: [DNG] FW: support for merged /usr in Debian]

Hi, On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 04:08:53PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > On 2016-01-03 15:59:37, Svante Signell wrote: > > Hi,  > > > > This message was not intended to be sent to a debian-* mailing list by > > the author. However, since it is (in my opinion) of large interest I > > got the permission

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 13:44:36 +0100, Simon Richter wrote: >"Compatibility" is a very valid use case. Debian is famous for backwards >compatibility and trouble-free upgrades. We have been able to do this in the past, yes. I doubt we will be able to keep this promise in the future.

Re: [Fwd: Re: [DNG] FW: support for merged /usr in Debian]

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 16:08:53 +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: >Wow, here I was thinking this would be some informed oppinion, but: > >"Oh, there are tools with which you can periscope into >initramfs, but have you ever really looked at everything in an >initramfs." > >Wait, what? Yes, I

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Hi, On 03.01.2016 19:15, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> However, this also means that systemd can never fully replace sysvinit, >> except on desktops, laptops and servers that follow a standard layout. > I see no reason why this would be true. Because the alternative is to bloat the scope of the

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 14173 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Is there any use case that requires supporting unmerged systems? > Someone has already mentioned mounting /usr ro. But one generally has > to keep /etc rw. I don't think that the right way to address this is > to make /etc a mount point. No, /etc can

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 02, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > No, /etc can be nicely ro. That is, /, /usr, /etc, ... can be. The log > storage and the user homes, as well as a tmp filesystem rw, rest ro. > Works nicely, I have 4 of such systems running. Just to be clear: on a merged /usr system nothing

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 03:53:03PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 01, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Someone has already mentioned mounting /usr ro. But one generally has > > to keep /etc rw. I don't think that the right way to address this is > >

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 02, Geert Stappers wrote: > A design with "whole OS on /usr" breaks the good pratice of having > tools like /bin/mount and /sbin/ifconfig available when /usr is unavailable. This is not a good practice but just an historical accident: for details see

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 02, Marc Haber wrote: > What is the "upgrade path" for an older system that has /usr split > off? Will it just stop being bootable after upgrading? It just needs to use an initramfs. A standalone /usr without an initramfs IS ALREADY NOT SUPPORTED by systemd.

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 19:00:17 +0100, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: >On Jan 02, Geert Stappers wrote: >> A design with "whole OS on /usr" breaks the good pratice of having >> tools like /bin/mount and /sbin/ifconfig available when /usr is unavailable. >This is not a good

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 18:25:21 +0100, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: >On Jan 02, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> No, /etc can be nicely ro. That is, /, /usr, /etc, ... can be. The log >> storage and the user homes, as well as a tmp filesystem rw, rest ro. >> Works nicely, I have 4 of

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 18:42:14 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: >To me is this "TheUsrMerge" something like among >* "it is hard too to explain to have /sbin/fsck and not /usr/sbin/fsck" >* "there was a question about /bin/kill and /usr/bin/killall being >inconsequent" >* "we

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 03/01/16 07:00, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 02, Geert Stappers wrote: > >> A design with "whole OS on /usr" breaks the good pratice of having >> tools like /bin/mount and /sbin/ifconfig available when /usr is unavailable. > This is not a good practice but just an

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Am 02.01.2016 um 22:08 schrieb Marc Haber: > On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 18:42:14 +0100, Geert Stappers > wrote: >> To me is this "TheUsrMerge" something like among >> * "it is hard too to explain to have /sbin/fsck and not /usr/sbin/fsck" >> * "there was a question about /bin/kill

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 3 January 2016 at 00:25, Daniel Reurich wrote: > On 03/01/16 07:00, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> On Jan 02, Geert Stappers wrote: >> >>> A design with "whole OS on /usr" breaks the good pratice of having >>> tools like /bin/mount and /sbin/ifconfig

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 01:23:14AM -0200, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote: > It violates the FHS 2.3 standards. > > http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_2.3/fhs-2.3.html Can you cite the requirement in FHS 2.3 which is violated by usrmerge. I only found the requirements that allow us to do usrmerge via

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Dec 31, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > It is not only about lintian it is about the quality of your maintscript. My maintscripts are a total of four commands and they have used for at least 9 months in packages with priority important (nano) and required

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote: > https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge Now that we have union mounts in Linux, should we instead do what Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie should have done; install things in / instead of /usr and use union mounts when there is one small disk

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Paul Wise writes: > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge > > Now that we have union mounts in Linux, should we instead do what Ken > Thompson and Dennis Ritchie should have done; install things in / > instead of /usr and use

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:20:42PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge > > Now that we have union mounts in Linux, should we instead do what Ken > Thompson and Dennis Ritchie should have done; install things in / >

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes: > Thanks to my conversion program in usrmerge there is no need for a flag > day, archive rebuilds or similar complexity and we can even continue to > support unmerged systems. Is there any use case that requires supporting unmerged systems? It's simpler to

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Moving /bin, /sbin, /lib to /usr has some advantages like being able to > mount /usr read-only while keeping /etc read-write. Or sharing /usr > between multiple containers and having them only use a different / with > different /etc and

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Re: support for merged /usr in Debian"): > m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes: > > Thanks to my conversion program in usrmerge there is no need for a flag > > day, archive rebuilds or similar complexity and we can even continue to >

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Hi, On 01.01.2016 14:28, Vincent Bernat wrote: >> Booting without an initrd, which is important for resource-constrained >> embedded systems. > Do you also require a separate /usr for those systems? My current system doesn't, but I might need it in the future because mounting /usr takes an

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 01, Ian Jackson wrote: > Someone has already mentioned mounting /usr ro. But one generally has > to keep /etc rw. I don't think that the right way to address this is > to make /etc a mount point. I am not aware of any plan to make /etc a mount point,

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Hi, On 01.01.2016 12:23, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Is there any use case that requires supporting unmerged systems? Booting without an initrd, which is important for resource-constrained embedded systems. I have a system that boots in three seconds, which is fairly long already. Adding an

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

❦ 1 janvier 2016 13:29 +0100, Simon Richter  : >> Is there any use case that requires supporting unmerged systems? > > Booting without an initrd, which is important for resource-constrained > embedded systems. Do you also require a separate /usr for those systems? -- The

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 01:29:09PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > On 01.01.2016 12:23, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > > Is there any use case that requires supporting unmerged systems? > > Booting without an initrd, which is important for resource-constrained > embedded systems. > > [reasons for

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> On Dec 31, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: >> >>> It is not only about lintian it is about the quality of your

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 12:23:20PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes: > > Thanks to my conversion program in usrmerge there is no need for a flag > > day, archive rebuilds or similar complexity and we can even continue to > > support unmerged systems. > > Is

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Adam Borowski wrote: > I don't think so. You already need the / filesystem, and with today storage > sizes, if you can hold that, you can hold the whole system, period. Even on > any embedded that can run Debian. I'm reminded of the posts by Joey Hess in 2007:

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 2016-01-01 13:39:35, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 12:23:20PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes: > > > Thanks to my conversion program in usrmerge there is no need for a flag > > > day, archive rebuilds or similar complexity and we can even

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Dec 31, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > >> It is not only about lintian it is about the quality of your maintscript. > My maintscripts are a total of four commands and they have used for at > least 9

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Re: support for merged /usr in Debian"): >> m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes: >> > Thanks to my conversion program in usrmerge there is no need for a flag >> > day, ar

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 01, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > > My maintscripts are a total of four commands and they have used for at > > least 9 months in packages with priority important (nano) and required > > (debianutils), with no problems reported. > > If you believe that they are

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, 2016-01-01 at 20:55 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > > Moving /bin, /sbin, /lib to /usr has some advantages like being able to > > mount /usr read-only while keeping /etc read-write.  Or sharing /usr > > between multiple containers and

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Dec 31, Marc Haber wrote: > >> Please consider keeping support for separate /usr as it is done today. >> Mounting /usr in initrd is an acceptable workaround. > The whole point of the merged

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 01:51:45 +0100, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: >We have a reasonably tested usrmerge package which can be used to >convert on the fly a system to merged /usr, and the good news is that >there are only three packages which need to be fixed to work on a merged >/usr

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Dec 31, Marc Haber wrote: > Please consider keeping support for separate /usr as it is done today. > Mounting /usr in initrd is an acceptable workaround. The whole point of the merged /usr scheme is to support a separate /usr file system, except that this way it

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Dec 31, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > Yes I have some question. You do not answered point given in #767754 > about dpkg-divert. Moreover guillem and me consider that symlinking > lib is evil. Because I still do not really understand your objections nor which

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Dec 31, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > >> Yes I have some question. You do not answered point given in #767754 >> about dpkg-divert. Moreover guillem and me consider that symlinking >> lib is evil.

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 30 December 2015 at 22:51, Marco d'Itri wrote: > We have a reasonably tested usrmerge package which can be used to > convert on the fly a system to merged /usr, and the good news is that > there are only three packages which need to be fixed to work on a merged > /usr system. >

support for merged /usr in Debian

We have a reasonably tested usrmerge package which can be used to convert on the fly a system to merged /usr, and the good news is that there are only three packages which need to be fixed to work on a merged /usr system. Thanks to my conversion program in usrmerge there is no need for a flag

<    1   2   3