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 1S7vEk-0002l5-Vl for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:55:59 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0AE95E0877; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:55:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A610AE07AA for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:55:14 +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 28E8B22C00B for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:55:14 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F6105B0.4010006@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:55:12 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120304 Thunderbird/10.0.1 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] Re: Let's redesign the entire filesystem! References: <20120311173355.GB6599@linux1> <4F5EA152.80604@gentoo.org> <4F5FE34A.4030609@gentoo.org> <4F6091CE.1050009@gentoo.org> <20120314144115.GA30606@kroah.com> <20120314145144.GC3200@ca.inter.net> <20120314150431.GA2033@kroah.com> <20120314150827.53dc8336@googlemail.com> <20120314152209.GA2157@kroah.com> <4F60D585.4050206@gentoo.org> <4F60E9C1.7050600@gentoo.org> <4F60F9A1.2090402@cs.stonybrook.edu> In-Reply-To: <4F60F9A1.2090402@cs.stonybrook.edu> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0b7d88bf-2bbd-47d6-aa6b-efadd6520651 X-Archives-Hash: 5511472ab085541fee0b1bd09d025e8d On 03/14/2012 01:03 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > On 03/14/12 14:56, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 03/14/2012 11:36 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 19:58, Matthew Summers >>> wrote: >>>> Why is an in-kernel initramfs so bad anyway? I am baffled. Its quite >>>> nice to have a minimal recovery env in case mounting fails, etc, etc, >>>> etc. >>> >>> There is nothing bad about initramfs. I think that you are misreading >>> the arguments above. >> >> Whatever the arguments may be, the whole discussion boils down to the >> fact that the only people who seem to have a "problem" are those that >> have a separate /usr partition and simultaneously refuse to use an >> initramfs. > > I do not have a separate /usr partition, however I agree with Joshua > Kinard's stance regarding the /usr move. The point of having a separate > /usr was to enable UNIX to exceed the space constraints that a 1.5MB > hard disk placed on rootfs. As far as I know, we do not support a 1.5MB > rootfs so it would make sense to deprecate the practice of having things > that belong in / in /usr directory, as opposed to making /usr into a new /. > > Deprecation of this practice would mean that people could type > /bin/command instead of /usr/bin/command in situations where absolute > paths are necessary. We could symlink things in /usr to rootfs for > compatibility with legacy software. In a more extreme case, we could > symlink /usr to /, which would make plenty of sense given that we do not > need a separate /usr at all. I'm not seeing any compelling benefits here that would justify a lack of conformity with other *nix distros. It seems almost as though it's an attempt to be different for the sake of being different, perhaps a symptom of something like NIH syndrome. -- Thanks, Zac