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 1Roa4n-0002QD-QC for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:29:46 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6CFDBE07CE; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:29:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f53.google.com (mail-yw0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8FFE066B for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:28:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yhjj56 with SMTP id j56so780283yhj.40 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 04:28:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Txds/FKmouPknix/ebOU8Ckq6j7M+CkVlUdgS0jEW50=; b=fcRttoBtg6dLtmUnUoX1jih5Xu7+JY7A9TZBLQGzKiRaq6EcmK7l3j7qu9XK4Q0QjK yA42eAo2jrGC+z61n1l0B9DB3XjfIhdgC5Xdd60zLZyBQSEt5XGRKvycEywsbbGaf0FJ 3b0xqV5rz63n2CG8179Ds+kWhoxs3kuQnxFNI= Received: by 10.236.127.145 with SMTP id d17mr2059206yhi.131.1327148938339; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 04:28:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-98-95-147-47.jan.bellsouth.net. [98.95.147.47]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n64sm10694701yhk.4.2012.01.21.04.28.55 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 21 Jan 2012 04:28:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F1AAF86.1050503@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20120120 Firefox/9.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.6.1 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: <4F0440B3.4090500@gentoo.org> <20120106160719.GB18959@fury> <201201080047.27281.polynomial-c@gentoo.org> <20120108103345.382b8db3@pomiocik.lan> <20120110181452.GA14155@mailgate.onlinehome-server.info> <20120110194640.7696d2c7@pomiocik.lan> <4F163EB2.8050700@gmail.com> <20120118080213.4f533693@pomiocik.lan> <4F1672A3.2040802@gmail.com> <20120118143613.4d9d67a8@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120118143613.4d9d67a8@pomiocik.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 4faab315-d9e3-4fd5-962e-006f8947b323 X-Archives-Hash: 61a6aa61f5fa1fe8c9c9fd5667ba005a Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600 > Dale wrote: >=20 >> Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: >>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 >>> Dale wrote: >>> >>>> Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 >>>>> Enrico Weigelt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> * Micha?? G=C3=B3rny schrieb: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Does working hard involve compiling even more packages >>>>>>> statically? >>>>>> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? >>>>> Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then >>>>> put more work just to ensure that admin doesn't have to waste 15 >>>>> minutes to recompile the kernel (if necessary), create an >>>>> initramfs and add it to bootloader config? >>>>> >>>> 80Kbs? You sure about that? I somehow failed to mention this >>>> before. I noticed it when I saw another reply to this post. >>>> Reality check: >>> 80 KiB is enough for mounting plain /usr and booting with it. See >>> tiny-initramfs (but I haven't tested it thoroughly). >>> >> >> My plan is to have /usr on lvm. I think it will end up larger and it=20 >> still adds one more thing to break. >> >> I really wish someone would get a better plan. I think I see a >> garbage dump ahead with lots of Linux distros headed that way. >=20 > Better plan how? LVM requires udev for some reason. Letting rootfs grow > with data unnecessary for a number of users is no good plan either. > Just install that initramfs, be done with it and let us focus on actual > work rather than fixing random breakages. >=20 > We already usually have separate /boot to satisfy the needs of > bootloader. Then you want us to chain yet another filesystem to satisfy > the needs of another layer. Initramfs reuses /boot for that. >=20 The point is, I don't like initramfs. I don't want to use one. It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the recent so called "improvements." Dale :-) :-) --=20 I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=3D"--quiet-build=3Dn"