From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-49110-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>) id 1RhFwr-0001WN-Ml for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 01 Jan 2012 07:35:18 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B092121C0E4; Sun, 1 Jan 2012 07:34:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.mthode.org (rrcs-24-173-105-85.sw.biz.rr.com [24.173.105.85]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F99021C094 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 1 Jan 2012 07:34:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from khorne.mthode.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:e1cc:2:2677:3ff:fe25:a674]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.mthode.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83244C92C for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 1 Jan 2012 02:34:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 01:33:05 -0600 From: Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr Message-ID: <20120101013305.74edaba8@khorne.mthode.org> In-Reply-To: <1325401942.12935.11.camel@TesterTop4> References: <20120101015947.GA9914@linux1> <1325401942.12935.11.camel@TesterTop4> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10 (GTK+ 2.24.5; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/8Uh2bAxTw4aWs6vFOHiFWgz"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 40a4622a-93fa-4a4a-bc25-c9eba190a513 X-Archives-Hash: 302b0d555f9714763f1a98de40f03ef1 --Sig_/8Uh2bAxTw4aWs6vFOHiFWgz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 02:12:22 -0500 Olivier Cr=EAte <tester@gentoo.org> wrote: > Hi, >=20 > On Sat, 2011-12-31 at 19:59 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > I have been working with robbat2 on solutions to the separate /usr > > issue (That is why I have specifically cc'd him on this email) > > which will allow people to not use an initramfs. If we migrate > > everything off of the root fs to /usr, all of those solutions become > > moot. On the other hand, if we don't migrate, we run the risk of > > eventually having our default configuration not supported by > > upstream. >=20 > I think the general consensus among other distros is that initramfs is > the new /. Many core elements of the Linux system will start > installing themselves in /usr, starting with udev, so we won't have a > choice anyway. Also, I doubt it's currently possible to boot a Gentoo > system without /usr mounted anyway. >=20 > > 1) Start migrating packages along with upstream and have everyone > > who has a separate /usr (including me by the way) start using an > > initramfs of some kind, either dracut or one that we generate > > specifically for gentoo. The reason I suggest the initramfs, is, > > unfortunately if we migrate everything, nothing else would work. >=20 > I also don't see a good reason to not adopt dracut, re-implementing > something that already works and is maintained by a competent upstream > seems wasteful to me. I really don't see why people resist using an > initramfs so much. >=20 > The udev/kmod/systemd/dracut effort to standardise the base userspace > of Linux is probably scary for quite a few Gentoo-ers as it means > that the end result of an installed Gentoo system will be less > differentiated than it was before. But it still is a step in the > right direction as most of these standardized pieces are much better > than what we currently have. The OpenRC/baselayout-2 fiasco, not much > better than baselayout-1 and unmaintained upstream shows that even a > relatively large distribution like us can't maintain a competitive > base system solution, adopting the udev/kmod/systemd way will allow > us to use all the work that they are doing and instead concentrate on > making a better system. >=20 All of my systems currently have a seperate /usr that is mounted at boot. Unfortunately I do agree that this is not something that we can fight. This was brought up earlier and the only thing we can do for people like myself (who mount /usr at boot) is to create a simple initramfs that only has the purpose of mounting /usr at boot. The main thing I don't like about initramfs is that we have to regenerate it any time we update the packages that get included in it. -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) --Sig_/8Uh2bAxTw4aWs6vFOHiFWgz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPAAw4AAoJECRx6z5ArFrDtBkQAJmfb2zVL3XU4r/abXUvgCxc Bj35SQN6sx34csSM/69X/IJ5oa3KrcdW4/1wEOz4ENbgfaPCi8LeqbcsNsG9rKF6 RGhICJvdVtfMvo6jQk2MxlWVF+uyq2gSnxaLzV0ihC8F/yIrlCPU6Lgkv55JLcyU 4LJjJXWGXybd4Y+gQZTxUVLFLVwSz0jK4DVr8kMkh4s4GIb894BUVSxh4jVrpFR0 MydqqXk++tSBo6BIrQZ/yPd1MeiYS7wkBZ9XYSTqhctQAZbuX+D8wDQ3zEXdJrFK vJd5i6DIkZJArHLwonoXVdBTj7PFk7ZJfxfz2e828YInRPhfZq90Gx4o92HeHo5y J/KPh941IzBZq8YAZIaJ//OXoi+w+xtuu8hHvuoduGVBf10Grcsk5JEl/2wppb1Q IDxrwV8ABJ6NrbGCLJbZfBcLonAf3fI8BFCaamo2PcKxkyWJ8IsVzTL6KGHKRbVq hCEkmrkl4ATkdtN5JUNdKG/4Z0L7QNk7FiajqtChYVHm35lOVeTVnU2oLXMXfVYW WPtUciiWVQzNdxwuLgvUr8iu0zLeTRw7KSDRe9vsRLS2c0W0kVzJ2DMV0iMaM0eY vTXWSQNS3JzCr6ma1INmM0fsAUyz9Q0dlJLZ4l3LC3B4U3nyLPlKB3zTzncOlY+F mzGhUenf5xT3fEhBf8Zv =T0Bh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/8Uh2bAxTw4aWs6vFOHiFWgz--