On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:05:19PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
>
> > another benefit (not yet mentioned) is for filesystem encryption. I have /
> > and
> > /home encrypted and /usr not encrypted (for better performance of my la
On 10/19/2010 04:13 PM, James Antill wrote:
> Also, are we sure that people don't want to change any options other
> than "ro" (the only thing you can tweak with the bind trick, AIUI)? I
> thought someone mentioned noatime...
I don't really think noatime is as big of a consideration any more, no
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Somewhere in the recesses of my memory I remember a UNIX where /bin, /lib,
> and so on were just symlinks to /usr/bin, /usr/lib, and so on.
Tru64 (Yes, it's still supported!) does:
gho...@seraph ~ % uname -a
OSF1 seraph.tetraforge.com V5.1 2650 alpha
gho...@seraph ~ % ls
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/20/2010 08:13 AM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> On 10/20/2010 07:52 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:50:43PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:40 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, James Anti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/20/2010 07:52 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:50:43PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:40 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>>> Once upon a time, James Antill said:
Putting my really old sysadmin hat
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:50:43PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:40 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, James Antill said:
> > > Putting my really old sysadmin hat on, one other reason for
> > > having /tmp, /var and /usr as separate mount points was so that you
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Cleaver, Japheth wrote:
> A ton of this work was already done in initscripts through the use of the
> /etc/sysconfig/readonly-root hooks. Isn't that already working well enough
> now for that purpose, future systemd changes aside?
Not sure if it's directly related to t
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 19:58, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Peter Jones (pjo...@redhat.com) said:
>> Because we haven't decided to merge those together. That's really the only
>> reason - there's no over-arching technical reason they need to be separate.
>> It's entirely a historical consideration.
>
Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham said:
> Peter Jones (pjo...@redhat.com) said:
> > Because we haven't decided to merge those together. That's really the only
> > reason - there's no over-arching technical reason they need to be separate.
> > It's entirely a historical consideration.
>
> Somewhe
Cleaver, Japheth (jclea...@soe.sony.com) said:
> A ton of this work was already done in initscripts through the use of the
> /etc/sysconfig/readonly-root hooks. Isn't that already working well enough
> now for that purpose, future systemd changes aside?
Given that it involves bind-mounting *fil
Peter Jones (pjo...@redhat.com) said:
> Because we haven't decided to merge those together. That's really the only
> reason - there's no over-arching technical reason they need to be separate.
> It's entirely a historical consideration.
Somewhere in the recesses of my memory I remember a UNIX whe
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:40 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, James Antill said:
> > Putting my really old sysadmin hat on, one other reason for
> > having /tmp, /var and /usr as separate mount points was so that you
> > could allocate different disk space to each (and they couldn't b
Once upon a time, James Antill said:
> Putting my really old sysadmin hat on, one other reason for
> having /tmp, /var and /usr as separate mount points was so that you
> could allocate different disk space to each (and they couldn't break
> each other) ... do we have other solutions for that?
O
> -Original Message-
> From: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> [mailto:devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf
> Of Lennart Poettering
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 7:38 AM
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
> Subject: Re: rawhide rep
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Well, I don't think people have suggested removing /var as a separate
> mountpoint. The stuff in /etc is a much more interesting case. Do you
> have some examples?
So first off, I personally don't care if /usr is allowed to be separat
On 10/19/2010 02:25 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Peter Jones said:
>> On 10/19/2010 11:28 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
>>> And how many of those bugs are exclusively a /usr-is-separate problem
>>> vs. how many of them are didn't-anticipate-alternate-partitioning
>>> problems?
>>
>> If I un
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/19/2010 11:25 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> If separate /usr isn't considered a valid configuration, why do we have
> separate /bin, /sbin, /lib{,64}?
Today it isn't necessarily valid. Things do progress, and the reasons
for separate /usr back in th
Once upon a time, Peter Jones said:
> On 10/19/2010 11:28 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > And how many of those bugs are exclusively a /usr-is-separate problem
> > vs. how many of them are didn't-anticipate-alternate-partitioning
> > problems?
>
> If I understand your distinction correctly, then the o
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 11:12 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > Well, I don't think people have suggested removing /var as a separate
> > mountpoint. The stuff in /etc is a much more interesting case. Do you
> > have some examples?
>
> Password/Shadow files? SSL Certs/SSL Keys for various kinds of dae
Le mardi 19 octobre 2010 à 14:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> > This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
> > Filesystem):
> >
> >/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located o
On 10/19/2010 11:28 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
>> Because it takes more engineering effort to keep it as a separate
>> partition, as evidenced by the number of bugs that keep appearing that
>> are only triggered by this niche usecase.
>
> And how many of th
On 10/19/2010 01:01 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:43:49AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> This is out of 1,702,459 submissions of profiles that included filesystem
>> data. So about 3% of users have something mounted in /usr and about 2.2%
>> have /usr mounted directly.
>
>
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:43:49AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> This is out of 1,702,459 submissions of profiles that included filesystem
> data. So about 3% of users have something mounted in /usr and about 2.2%
> have /usr mounted directly.
Given that you have to go out of your way to do it, th
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 11:25 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:22 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, So when this was broken a lot of bugs were triggered?
> >>>
> >>> Sure seems like if a lot of bugs are being triggered then it i
On 10/19/2010 11:25 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:22 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm, So when this was broken a lot of bugs were triggered?
>>>
>>> Sure seems like if a lot of bugs are being triggered then it is NOT a
>>> niche usecase.
>>>
>>> You can't have it both w
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> Because it takes more engineering effort to keep it as a separate
> partition, as evidenced by the number of bugs that keep appearing that
> are only triggered by this niche usecase.
And how many of those bugs are exclusively a /usr-is-separate problem
On Tue, 19.10.10 16:51, Stanislav Ochotnicky (sochotni...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 04:37 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Note that many other distributions gave up on seperate /usr already (for
> > example, Gentoo do this, and even refers to Fedora that it wasn't
> > supported here, wh
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:22 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, So when this was broken a lot of bugs were triggered?
> >
> > Sure seems like if a lot of bugs are being triggered then it is NOT a
> > niche usecase.
> >
> > You can't have it both ways.
>
> Very few people do it. When the
On 10/19/2010 11:22 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 11:18 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> So it seems like you need to explain why you think /usr should NOT be on
> a separate partition.
Because it adds additional complexity for no obvious gain.
>>>
>>> that's not plausi
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 11:18 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> >>> So it seems like you need to explain why you think /usr should NOT be on
> >>> a separate partition.
> >>
> >> Because it adds additional complexity for no obvious gain.
> >
> > that's not plausible enough, imo. There is clear gain to eno
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:15:02AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:08 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > It doesn't. You can make it a read-only bind mount.
>
> If the files are still read-write at another location then something
> iterating over disks/locations can still find i
On 10/19/2010 11:15 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:08 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:03:50AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>
> /usr is frequently given different mount options (like noatime
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:08 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:03:50AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > > > /usr is frequently given different mount options (like noatime, for
> > > > example) or mounted readonly
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:07:24AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> > >
> > > > another benefit (not yet mentio
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:07:24AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> >
> > > another benefit (not yet mentioned) is for filesystem encryption. I have
> > > / and
> > > /home
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:03:50AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > > /usr is frequently given different mount options (like noatime, for
> > > example) or mounted readonly to prevent unnecessary writes to the
> > > system.
> >
> > That do
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
>
> > another benefit (not yet mentioned) is for filesystem encryption. I have /
> > and
> > /home encrypted and /usr not encrypted (for better performance of my laptop)
>
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> another benefit (not yet mentioned) is for filesystem encryption. I have /
> and
> /home encrypted and /usr not encrypted (for better performance of my laptop)
I'm kind of curious about this. What's on / that benefits from being
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > /usr is frequently given different mount options (like noatime, for
> > example) or mounted readonly to prevent unnecessary writes to the
> > system.
>
> That doesn't require it to be a separate partition.
Mounting the location meanin
On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 15:56:54 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> > This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
> >
> > Filesystem):
> >/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on
> >
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:38:13AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> /opt is a location filled with vendor detritus on a lot of systems -
> sometimes managed by rpms, sometimes not. It's not uncommon to have /opt
> automounted via nfs. Additionally, on some workstastion systems /opt is
> a separate drive
On 10/19/2010 04:37 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Note that many other distributions gave up on seperate /usr already (for
> example, Gentoo do this, and even refers to Fedora that it wasn't
> supported here, which is technically true, but so far not officially).
Where did you get that idea? Fro
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 14:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> > This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
> > Filesystem):
> >
> >/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
On Tue, 19.10.10 14:43, Paul Howarth (p...@city-fan.org) wrote:
>
> On 19/10/10 14:11, Rawhide Report wrote:
> > anaconda-15.3-1.fc15
> >
> > * Mon Oct 18 2010 Chris Lumens - 15.3-1
> > - Don't recommend /usr as a mount point anymore (#643640). (clumens)
>
> This despite th
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:24:10AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> A smaller / that is written to less often is less susceptible to errors.
> If you don't allocate enough space for / up front, you can move /usr and
> /opt to separate filesystems later. /opt can be completely
> unpredictable in space
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> > This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
> > Filesystem):
> >
> >/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
> >partitions or
On 19/10/10 15:01, Chris Lumens wrote:
>> This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
>> Filesystem):
>>
>> /usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
>> partitions or filesystems.
>
> Neat.
>
>> Do we *really* want to head this way, igno
> This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
> Filesystem):
>
>/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
>partitions or filesystems.
Neat.
> Do we *really* want to head this way, ignoring bugs resulting from
> having /usr on a diff
2010/10/19 Paul Howarth :
> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/#626007
Comments are worth reading, I'm sure.
--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
> Filesystem):
>
>/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
>partitions or filesystems.
>
> Do we *really* want to head this
On 19/10/10 14:11, Rawhide Report wrote:
> anaconda-15.3-1.fc15
>
> * Mon Oct 18 2010 Chris Lumens - 15.3-1
> - Don't recommend /usr as a mount point anymore (#643640). (clumens)
This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
Filesystem):
/usr, /opt,
51 matches
Mail list logo
