On 03/14/12 17:04, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:57:52PM +0000, David Leverton wrote:
>> Would anyone else like to continue with their own favourite
>> separate-/usr reason?
> 
> Haveing a separate /usr is wonderful, and once we finish moving /sbin/
> and /bin/ into /usr/ it makes even more sense.  See the /usr page at
> fedora for all of the great reasons why this is good.
> 
> What doesn't make sense is people who do that, refusing to use an initrd
> or initramfs to make the whole thing work properly.
> 
> It's as if people want the benefits, yet fail to want to actually use
> the tools required to get those benefits.  It makes no sense, and if
> anyone continues to complain, it shows a lack of understanding.
> 
> greg k-h
> 

Is this that page?

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove

That refers to the systemd website on freedesktop.org.

http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge

Reading that, it seems to me that this /usr move was caused by a
systemd-specific decision that rootfs should be both system-specific and
located on the particular system while /usr should be network mountable.
However, I see no argument for why that should be the case.

Thinking about it, I suppose this would make sense in an enterprise
setting where everything is diskless. If you PXE boot, put rootfs on
iSCSI and have /usr on a NFS mount, this would work very well. Claiming
that people show a lack of understanding when you never explain this,
however, is definitely the wrong thing to do.

With that said, I have a few questions:

1. Why does no one mention the enterprise use case at all?
2. Why not make rootfs a NFS mount with a unionfs at the SAN/NAS device?
3. Why not let the users choose where these directories go and support
both locations?