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 1S8CdC-0002dO-91 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:30:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 15446E0C5A; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:30:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 870C7E09FA for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:29:34 +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 F0CD81B404E for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:29:33 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F620ADC.1080409@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:29:32 -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: <20120314150827.53dc8336@googlemail.com> <20120314152209.GA2157@kroah.com> <4F60D585.4050206@gentoo.org> <4F60E9C1.7050600@gentoo.org> <20120314210456.GB11179@kroah.com> <20120314225117.GB12279@kroah.com> <4F612E09.1090900@gentoo.org> <4F613B96.9000602@gentoo.org> <4F61E024.4070609@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4F61E024.4070609@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0803046c-f671-4699-8ff1-a2f9f2ce669f X-Archives-Hash: 1824778457b70b2ac021e7a7a7069489 On 03/15/2012 05:27 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 03/14/2012 20:45, Zac Medico wrote: > >> On 03/14/2012 05:36 PM, David Leverton wrote: >>> On 14 March 2012 23:47, Zac Medico wrote: >>>> It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing. >>> >>> Clearly something must have changed in udev 181 to make >>> /usr-without-initramfs not work anymore, and someone must have done >>> something to make that change happen, unless udev has aquired the >>> ability to evolve by itself. >> >> You're pointing your finger at udev, but the udev change is just a >> symptom of a more general shift away from supporting the "/ is a >> self-contained boot disk that is independent of /usr" use case. > > > I think it's better to say that udev is one of the more important components > of your average Linux system that's decided to support a unified root + /usr > filesystem. If we were looking at some non-critical, non-boot service that > made this decision, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. They're intertwined though, since having a unified root implies that there is no support for the "/ is a self-contained boot disk that is independent of /usr" use case, and the bulk of people's opposition to having a unified root seems to stem from their dependence on the "/ is a self-contained boot disk that is independent of /usr" use case. So, the question at the heart of the whole discussion is: Should we support the "/ is a self-contained boot disk that is independent of /usr" use case? -- Thanks, Zac