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 ) id 1RidGi-0000aF-0C for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2012 02:41:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3821E21C03E; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 02:41:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B6121C03D for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 02:40:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.5] (ip98-164-193-252.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.193.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68CA8644A6 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 02:40:42 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F050DA9.4060704@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:40:41 -0800 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111120 Thunderbird/8.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr References: <1325616625.7238.23.camel@TesterBox.tester.ca> <20120103190255.GA13817@linux1> <20120103191206.GP780@gentoo.org> <20120103200120.GB13936@linux1> <20120103212215.GU780@gentoo.org> <20120103230918.GA7247@linux1> <4F03A1AA.6070205@gentoo.org> <20120104091743.0e1cd91a@pomiocik.lan> <4F0440B3.4090500@gentoo.org> <20120104163734.07439f2b@pomiocik.lan> <20120104163315.GV780@gentoo.org> <20120104174742.11d7002d@pomiocik.lan> <20228.34930.732592.657243@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <1325698374.22213.10.camel@TesterBox.tester.ca> In-Reply-To: <1325698374.22213.10.camel@TesterBox.tester.ca> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 01270694-c4b9-4927-be2f-29cb8957ecb4 X-Archives-Hash: e19477d3a8c91d0d352f5858788c88b1 On 01/04/2012 09:32 AM, Olivier Cr=C3=AAte wrote: > On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 18:12 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: >> >>>> What mistakes? >> >>> The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of >>> thumb which becomes more and more blurry over time, and hacking >>> packages just to make it work. >> >> There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation. >> The FHS has a nice definition: "The contents of the root filesystem >> must be adequate to boot, restore, recover, and/or repair the system." >=20 > The problem is that to boot a modern system, you need a shitload of > stuff. For example, modern network filesystems often have secure > authentication and probably LDAP too, so that means we need to move lda= p > and openssl into / and all the dependencies. Also, anything that > installs a udev rule needs to be in /, and the list goes on an on. Very > soon, you have almost everything in /... >=20 > This rule made sense in the 80s, but it doesn't match the modern world > anymore. >=20 > Some longer explanations: > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove The FHS notion of "root filesystem as a recovery partition" existed long before the relatively modern development of things like busybox and initramfs made it more practical to use an initramfs as a recovery partition. Anyone who wouldn't prefer to use an initramfs for their "recover partition" probably just doesn't realize how well suited an initramfs is for the job. It's so well suited for the job that it makes the old FHS notion of "root filesystem as a recovery partition" seem quai= nt. --=20 Thanks, Zac