Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:33:34 -0600, Dale wrote:
Putting /usr on LVM is not the problem. I have had /usr on LVM for a
good long while now. It has booted just fine. The new udev is what is
going to break it, whether I use LVM or not from what has been said on
this list
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:23:16 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
I don't like, really don't like, the work that currently goes into
making my 'init thingy' work. All the Gentoo docs about creating
hierarchies by hand and
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 15:42:22 -0600, Dale wrote:
I've been running separate /usr on LVM with ~arch udev and no
initramfs on a couple of systems with no problems. The news item is
taking the easy way out by saying it will break rather than it may
break - such breakage is by no means certain
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:00:36 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
The right tools are included, and documented, with your kernel.
Create a plain text config file detailing the contents of the
initramfs and set CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE to the path top this file.
That and an init script are all you
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:00:36 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
The right tools are included, and documented, with your kernel.
Create a plain text config file detailing the contents of the
initramfs and set
Nuno J. Silva wrote:
On 2012-12-25, Dale wrote:
root@fireball / # egrep 'usb-db|pci-db|FROM_DATABASE|/usr' /*/udev/rules.d/*
[...]
$$D; printf %%03i:%%03i $$B $$D', RUN+=/bin/sh -c '/usr/bin/python
/usr/bin/hp-check-plugin -m %c '
/lib/udev/rules.d/86-hpmud_plugin.rules:SUBSYSTEM==usb,
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:17:24 Nuno J. Silva wrote:
Also, if you actually read the linked URL, it does explain it won't fail
to boot. You do realize these are two different issues here, right? One
is people saying that udev-181 will fail to boot, other is the issue
described on the URL linked
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:00:36 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
The right tools are included, and documented, with your kernel.
Create a plain text config file detailing the contents of the
initramfs and set
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:00:36 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
The right tools are included, and documented, with your kernel.
Create a plain
Paul Colquhoun wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:17:24 Nuno J. Silva wrote:
Also, if you actually read the linked URL, it does explain it won't fail
to boot. You do realize these are two different issues here, right? One
is people saying that udev-181 will fail to boot, other is the
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 11:51:43AM -0500, Todd Goodman wrote:
Same question ... initrd.gz and initramfs are *not* the same thing; and
there
was a package called mkinitrd in Gentoo that was retired to attic some time
ago, before my exodus from Slackware to Gentoo; therefore, I don't
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:01:14PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
When you're in charge of over 100 servers as the back-end of a
multinational company that has a revenue in excess of 10 million USD per
day, even a temporary outage means the CIO, COO, and CEO breathing down
your neck.
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:00:36 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
The right tools are included, and documented, with your
On Dec 26, 2012 6:35 AM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:01:14PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
When you're in charge of over 100 servers as the back-end of a
multinational company that has a revenue in excess of 10 million
USD per
day,
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Bruce Hill
da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:01:14PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
When you're in charge of over 100 servers as the back-end of a
multinational company that has a revenue in excess of 10 million USD per
day,
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Bruce Hill
da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:01:14PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
When you're in charge of over 100 servers as the back-end of a
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 08:39:41PM +, Neil Bothwick wrote
You are only considering the case of /usr being on a plain hard disk
partition, what if it in on an LVM volume, or encrypted (or both)
of mounted over the
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:06:27 +0800
Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 08:39:41PM +, Neil Bothwick wrote
You are only considering the case of /usr being on a plain hard
disk
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:03:25 +0200
nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote:
On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +0200
nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote:
On 2012-12-18, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:08:53 -0500
Nuno J. Silva wrote:
On 2012-12-24, Dale wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:03:25 +0200
nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote:
On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +0200
nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote:
[...]
What about just
It was in fact a weirdo corner case
since day 1.
Right, a weirdo corner case that is part of best practice and the
default suggestion on debian stable used on many many servers and for
good reason.
--
___
'Write programs
Are there any other cases, apart from emotional attachment based on
inertia, where a separate / and /usr are desirable? As I see it, there
is only the system, and it is an atomic unit.
You should really read the thread before posting.
--
You are only considering the case of /usr being on a plain hard disk
partition, what if it in on an LVM volume, or encrypted (or both)
of mounted over the network? All of these require something to be
run before they can be mounted, and if that cannot be run until udev
has started, we
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Nuno J. Silva nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt wrote:
On 2012-12-24, Dale wrote:
[snip]
Well, so far I have stuck with the udev that works without a init
thingy. I do have a init thingy for when the udev that requires it is
marked stable. The devs are keeping the
Nuno J. Silva wrote:
On 2012-12-24, Dale wrote:
Nuno J. Silva wrote:
On 2012-12-24, Dale wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:03:25 +0200
nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote:
On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +0200
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Are there any other cases, apart from emotional attachment based on
inertia, where a separate / and /usr are desirable? As I see it, there
is only the system, and it is an atomic unit.
You should really read the thread before posting.
I suspect that Alan has. Alan is
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Nuno J. Silva nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt wrote:
On 2012-12-24, Michael Mol wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Nuno J. Silva nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt
wrote:
On 2012-12-24, Dale wrote:
[...]
From my understanding, if I upgrade my system to the later version
Michael Mol wrote:
you wouldn't have this problem if you did *something else* is a
terrible response. There are very good reasons to use LVM. There are
good (IMO, at least) reasons to avoid using an initr* on Gentoo.
(Those reasons are sprinkled through the thread, some spoken by me,
some
Dale wrote:
Michael Mol wrote:
you wouldn't have this problem if you did *something else* is a
terrible response. There are very good reasons to use LVM. There are
good (IMO, at least) reasons to avoid using an initr* on Gentoo.
(Those reasons are sprinkled through the thread, some spoken by
On Dec 24, 2012 10:00 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
I have not
tested the theory but that is what people have been saying. Not only is
my /usr separate but it is on LVM partitons too.
If I recall correctly, easy repartitioning was supposed to be one of the
main reasons wy LVM was made
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 05:06:41PM +0200, Nuno J. Silva wrote:
Now, also, from my understanding, this was already the case for some
time (maybe even years?). And that's why I've asked for more details.
So, if the udev you use is OK with no initrd, what is in the new udev
that actually
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Dale wrote:
Michael Mol wrote:
you wouldn't have this problem if you did *something else* is a
terrible response. There are very good reasons to use LVM. There are
good (IMO, at least) reasons to avoid using an initr* on
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 12:25:02AM +0800, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
On Dec 24, 2012 10:00 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
I have not
tested the theory but that is what people have been saying. Not only is
my /usr separate but it is on LVM partitons too.
If I recall correctly, easy
On Dec 24, 2012 11:46 PM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 05:06:41PM +0200, Nuno J. Silva wrote:
Now, also, from my understanding, this was already the case for some
time (maybe even years?). And that's why I've asked for more details.
So, if
Michael Mol wrote:
Lay off the eggnog, Dale. Too early yet. :P -- :wq
For me it is NyQuil. I'm still battling the flu. I'm kicking butt but
getting mine kicked at the same time. Other than NyQuil, no alcohol here.
Dale
:-) :-)
--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what
Bruce Hill wrote:
SNIP
No initrd...
YET!!! ROFL
When eudev goes stable, then we can disregard that yet. ;-)
Dale
:-) :-)
--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how
you interpreted my words!
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:05:25AM -0600, Dale wrote:
Bruce Hill wrote:
SNIP
No initrd...
YET!!! ROFL
When eudev goes stable, then we can disregard that yet. ;-)
Dale
devfs still works wonderfully ... for principle, if no other reason, that file
server will *NEVER* have an
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:58:15 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
So, Nuno, everything was fine until they started moving things to a
place where it shouldn't be.
No Dale, that is just flat out wrong.
There is no such thing as place where stuff should be. There are only
conventions, and
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Bruce Hill
da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:05:25AM -0600, Dale wrote:
Bruce Hill wrote:
SNIP
No initrd...
YET!!! ROFL
When eudev goes stable, then we can disregard that yet. ;-)
Dale
devfs still works wonderfully
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:58:15 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
So, Nuno, everything was fine until they started moving things to a
place where it shouldn't be.
No Dale, that is just flat out wrong.
There is no such thing as place where stuff should be. There are
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
[snip]
The problems with that is these: It worked ALL these years, why should
it not now? I have / on a traditional partition which is not going to
resize easily. If I put / on LVM, I need a init
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
The problems with that is these: It worked ALL these years, why should
it not now? I have / on a traditional partition which is not going to
resize easily. If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy. I don't want a
init
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy.
No you don't. You could use a boot partition. Or grub2.
So, worked for ages, then it breaks when people change where they put
things. Answer is, don't change where you put things. Then
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:00:39 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:58:15 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
So, Nuno, everything was fine until they started moving things to a
place where it shouldn't be.
No Dale, that is just flat
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy.
No you don't. You could use a boot partition. Or grub2.
I don't remember reading /boot as a suggested
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
The problems with that is these: It worked ALL these years, why should
it not now? I have / on a traditional partition which is not going to
resize easily. If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy. I
Mark David Dumlao wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy.
No you don't. You could use a boot partition. Or grub2.
So, worked for ages, then it breaks when people change where they put
things. Answer is, don't change
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 01:23:16PM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
The problems with that is these: It worked ALL these years, why should
it not now? I have / on a traditional partition which is not going to
resize easily.
On 24/12/12 23:52, Dale wrote:
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Are there any other cases, apart from emotional attachment based on
inertia, where a separate / and /usr are desirable? As I see it, there
is only the system, and it is an atomic unit.
You should really read the thread before posting.
I
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 04:36:06PM -0600, Dale wrote:
One of the reasons I left Mandriva was because of the init thingy. If I
wanted one and liked having one, I would have never switched to Gentoo.
The init thingy was not the only reason but it was one of them. The
reason I do not want
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 05:23:13PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
Then came the decision to move udev inside /usr, forcing the issue.
Now, it'd been long understood that udev *itself* hadn't been broken.
The explanation given as much as a year earlier was that udev couldn't
control what *other*
Bruce Hill wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 05:23:13PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
Then came the decision to move udev inside /usr, forcing the issue.
Now, it'd been long understood that udev *itself* hadn't been broken.
The explanation given as much as a year earlier was that udev couldn't
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
One of the reasons I left Mandriva was because of the init thingy. If I
wanted one and liked having one, I would have never switched to Gentoo.
The init thingy was not the only reason but it was one of them. The
reason I
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Bruce Hill
da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 05:23:13PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
Then came the decision to move udev inside /usr, forcing the issue.
Now, it'd been long understood that udev *itself* hadn't been broken.
The
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:29 PM, »Q« boxc...@gmx.net wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:04:13 -0600
Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote:
Gentoo had mkinitrd once upon a time, but it's now in attic.
Somewhere, sometime, for some reason, initramfs (inital ram
filesystem) became vogue
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:29 PM, »Q« boxc...@gmx.net wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:04:13 -0600
Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote:
Gentoo had mkinitrd once upon a time, but it's now in attic.
Somewhere, sometime, for some reason, initramfs (inital ram
Mark David Dumlao wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Bruce Hill
da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:05:25AM -0600, Dale wrote:
Bruce Hill wrote:
SNIP
No initrd...
YET!!! ROFL
When eudev goes stable, then we can disregard that yet. ;-)
Dale
devfs
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 04:34:00PM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
I'm also interested in Bruce's history about initrd. Sounds like if
that worked today I'd just use it to make an initrd and be done with
it. Unlike you, I guess, I don't have any political position on these
images that get used
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 06:29:07PM -0600, »Q« wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:04:13 -0600
Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote:
Gentoo had mkinitrd once upon a time, but it's now in attic.
Somewhere, sometime, for some reason, initramfs (inital ram
filesystem) became vogue for
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 04:54:08PM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:29 PM, »Q« boxc...@gmx.net wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:04:13 -0600
Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote:
Gentoo had mkinitrd once upon a time, but it's now in attic.
Somewhere, sometime,
Mark Knecht wrote:
Fair enough. I don't agree that leaving Gentoo because you chose to
put all of /usr on LVM and then chose not to deal with the
implications of that over time, but it's your choice and I certainly
support choice. And I appreciate you communicating your POV. I'm also
Bruce Hill wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 06:29:07PM -0600, »Q« wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:04:13 -0600
Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote:
Gentoo had mkinitrd once upon a time, but it's now in attic.
Somewhere, sometime, for some reason, initramfs (inital ram
filesystem)
On Dec 25, 2012 1:55 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:58:15 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
The truth is simply this (derived from empirical observation):
Long ago we had established conventions about / and /usr; mostly
because the few
On 12/24/2012 10:56 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
Even back when hard disks are a mote in the eyes of today's mammoths,
you *can* make /usr part of /, there's no stopping you. Sure, other
SysAdmins may scoff and/or question your sanity, but the choice is
yours. YOU know what's best for your
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +0200
nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote:
On 2012-12-18, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:08:53 -0500
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
This sentence summarizes my understanding of your post nicely:
Now, why is /usr special?
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 07:03:25PM +0200, Nuno J. Silva wrote:
On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +0200
nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote:
On 2012-12-18, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:08:53 -0500
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com
On Dec 23, 2012 12:46 PM, Nuno J. Silva nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt wrote:
On 2012-12-23, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 07:03:25PM +0200, Nuno J. Silva wrote:
On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +0200
nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva)
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:44:43 +0200, Nuno J. Silva wrote:
Because certain people with influence have rearranged the filesystem
so that programs within /usr are absolutely necessary for booting;
they are needed _before_ init has a chance to mount /usr. So
either /usr has to be in the root
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 08:39:41PM +, Neil Bothwick wrote
You are only considering the case of /usr being on a plain hard disk
partition, what if it in on an LVM volume, or encrypted (or both)
of mounted over the network? All of these require something to be
run before they can be
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:03:25 +0200
nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote:
On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +0200
nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote:
On 2012-12-18, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:08:53 -0500
Michael
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 05:46:33 +0800
Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
A concensus would be good. A right consensus is more likely to get a
consensus. This has no bearing on the matters at hand.
/usr as
Am Donnerstag, 20. Dezember 2012, 11:45:34 schrieb Mark David Dumlao:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote:
with redhat's push to move everything into /usr - why not stop right there
and move everything back into /?
I originally thought
really? once upon a time I was told mounting / ro and /usr rw was a GOOD
THING
to do. I ignored that the same way I ignore it the other way round. With bind
mounting and stuff, you can make single directories rw.. so what is the
matter?
Ignorance is bliss, so good for you.
Only as root
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote:
with redhat's push to move everything into /usr - why not stop right there
and
move everything back into /?
I originally thought this way, but they actually reviewed the
technical and historical
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote:
with redhat's push to move everything into /usr - why not stop right there
and
move everything back into /?
I originally
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 05:46:33 +0800
Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
A concensus would be good. A right consensus is more likely to get a
consensus. This has no bearing on the matters at hand.
/usr as the default prefix for installed packages is the consensus
of the vast
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:09:50 +
Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I certainly don't expect linux to solve these management problems,
quite the opposite in fact but I can hope.
I hope mentioning OpenBSD won't put anyone off but taking a leap out of
their book I feel could really
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:55:16 -0500
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:08:53 -0500
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
This sentence summarizes my understanding of your post nicely:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:05:21 -0500
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't use separate initr* files, the initramfs is built into the
kernel, using the latest versions of the tools installed at the
time the kernel was compiled. That gives a single bootable file
that, if it works now,
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:05:21 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
I don't use separate initr* files, the initramfs is built into the
kernel, using the latest versions of the tools installed at the time
the kernel was compiled. That gives a single bootable file that, if
it works now, should always
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:38:14 +, Neil Bothwick wrote:
Those are unreasonable, if somewhat unlikely, scenarios
Ack! Too many uns
s/unreasonable/reasonable/
--
Neil Bothwick
With free advice you often get what you pay for.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:55:16 -0500
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:08:53 -0500
Michael Mol
with redhat's push to move everything into /usr - why not stop right there and
move everything back into /?
seperate /home, /var, /dev and /tmp makes sense (not counting proc, sys for
obvious reasons). But the rest? Why /usr/lib? Just /lib would be fine.
Remember how once there was a whole
Am Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012, 23:02:41 schrieb Marc Joliet:
Am Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:34:07 +
schrieb Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk:
[...]
Going back in time
his claim of pulse audio being good for professional audio was also
completely off the mark. Seperating Gnome and
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 07:48:45PM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote
remember this? a solution without a problem to solve, making a lot
of people's lifes harder, dropped onto them by the godlike Lennart P.?
http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/2009/06/0218.html
The thread was started by
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:42:01 +0100
Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote:
with redhat's push to move everything into /usr - why not stop right
there and move everything back into /?
seperate /home, /var, /dev and /tmp makes sense (not counting proc,
sys for obvious reasons).
Surely not libs, those go
in /usr/lib or /lib. If it's variable data somehow related to libs
then someone needs to look up lib in a dictionary.
I have to say I was shocked a while back when I found /usr/bin/firefox
linking to a shell script at /usr/lib/firefox/firefox
I'd be interested if
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote:
with redhat's push to move everything into /usr - why not stop right there and
move everything back into /?
I originally thought this way, but they actually reviewed the
technical and historical merits for
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:54 +0800
Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
That was the original reason for having / and /usr separate, and it
dates back to the early 70s. The other reason that stems from that
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:44:13 +0800
Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html
Well fair enough. This stuff is becoming more myth than fact as less
and less people are around to remember how it really went. There may
Thankfully, I've never had to
maintain systems whose disks were small and low performing enough that
it actually mattered to separate / from /usr.
So you don't understand it much at all. Actually many of lennarts pages
such as his security.html are full of wildly incorrect claims and
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:54 +0800
Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
That was the original reason for having / and /usr separate, and it
dates back to the early 70s. The other reason that stems from that
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:08:53 -0500
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
This sentence summarizes my understanding of your post nicely:
Now, why is /usr special? It's because it contains executable code the
system might require while launching.
Now there are only two approaches that could
Am Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:34:07 +
schrieb Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk:
[...]
Going back in time
his claim of pulse audio being good for professional audio was also
completely off the mark. Seperating Gnome and pulse can now cause pro
audio users on binary distro's major headaches
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:08:53 -0500
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
This sentence summarizes my understanding of your post nicely:
Now, why is /usr special? It's because it contains executable code the
system
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:55:16 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
#2 already has a solution, it's called an init*. Other solutions exist
but none are as elegant as a throwaway temporary filesystem in RAM.
I find virtually nothing elegant about a temporary filesystem in RAM.
It duplicates code that
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:55:16 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
#2 already has a solution, it's called an init*. Other solutions exist
but none are as elegant as a throwaway temporary filesystem in RAM.
I find virtually
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:16:05 +0200
nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote:
On 2012-12-14, Mark Knecht wrote:
I guess the other question that's lurking here for me is why do you
have /usr on a separate
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:54 +0800
Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
That was the original reason for having / and /usr separate, and it
dates back to the early 70s. The other reason that stems from that
time period is the size of disks we had back then - they were tiny
and
So, since I have /usr separate from the rest, I could mount it read only
and reduce the chance of corruption if say my UPS failed? I already do
this for /boot. Interesting. Very interesting indeed.
If the other issues happen, computers is likely the least of our
problems. ;-)
Or if
101 - 200 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
