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 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SrZoY-00060K-Gc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:21:38 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0D127E0656; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:21:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yx0-f181.google.com (mail-yx0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6353E0655 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:20:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yenl3 with SMTP id l3so2142609yen.40 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7gNtZ6y5BA/VS5gwrh6dTs+6QOoS/s4T1PWBJZ5Wn6M=; b=Q0M62kbeP9eDkBIvwiYCLN+K1S0p1r4JwjVq62NH2cToVHKrerNYui9HKCEbIs7lUp Gzpwp0PqeGQNMoGFOPumpZEsHG9+A/QWZoB/eGWr9FXBjFHxxuWUJNHgQMca0DniYIJi CvPMRPzRxYfy5yQ0xI9VhQswtOKdZeBOiM5KgRKKrueXe4/gh0XrZ5mv/6UYw3ftl2l7 kTUf5LGvqQPcVKRPoLRavkzPQlHc5QyKKIzQlLAWdyPLQ0ifJwWJr9CekL5mpyLpARpp 11vHJ6LtcHFanBMwhopOLcGpxJA/MFLlRVzAzApOAqUCUiQyVzbyOHzZpHc3oeY0aOII lF6w== 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 Received: by 10.236.173.34 with SMTP id u22mr2026531yhl.100.1342639230222; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.152.2 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5005D70D.3060108@gentoo.org> <1342566449.18313.38.camel@TesterTop4> <50063368.8080106@gentoo.org> <20120718101027.55dd00fe@pomiocik.lan> <5006B7A4.6010202@gentoo.org> <20120718161351.GA19044@serenity.o.westcall.spb.ru> <20120718184012.12446404@googlemail.com> <20120718195809.242f7d99@pomiocik.lan> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:20:30 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Opinion against /usr merge From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2FuZWsgUGVsw6FleiBWYWxkw6lz?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 6950a5f8-e2cc-4675-8152-1704660d443c X-Archives-Hash: e7626dc27bcac2cdad0b01481b4b66b4 On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Michael Mol wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Alec Warner wrote= : >> [snip] >>>> Debian uses initramfs-tools... >>> >>> AFAIK, neither genkernel nor dracut were expected to get tied to the >>> Gentoo update process. Has that changed? >> >> The kernel you are running (if you update your machine) is not tied to >> the Gentoo update process. The *source code* gets installed, but the >> kernel source remains unchanged in /usr/src/whatever. It's the user >> responsibility to configure, compile, and install the kernel (and then >> update LILO, grub-legacy or GRUB2). It can be automated with (ta-da) >> genkernel, but it's not "tied to the Gentoo update process". >> >> I really don't see that much difference with needing to also update >> the initramfs, if needed. > > What if your DNS resolver in your rescue shell has a vulnerability? > What if wget, links or whatever network tools you use during recovery > have a vulnerability? > > These are tools which are commonly placed in initramfs. First of all, none of this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Second, I don't know what kind of initramfs you are familiar with, but mine has nothing network related, and I don't see *any* reason to include *anything* network related to an initramfs. >> Because, besides, if your /usr is not in a different partition, you >> don't even *need* an initramfs. In that case not using an initramfs is >> supported by all upstreams. > > And what of /var? /opt? What about them? Again, what it has this anything to do with our current discussion? > The problem with the /usr merge upstream is > that someone didn't think things through when they pushed it, and the > same reasoning used to justify it easily justifies changing the way > /var and /opt are treated. That's pure speculation. Nobody has ever suggested merging /opt nor /var; if I'm mistaken I would love to see even a single link (mail, blog post, IRC discussion) were it was at least mentioned as a good idea to do the same with /opt or /var. I'm pretty sure you don't have any. Regards. --=20 Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingenier=C3=ADa de la Computaci=C3=B3n Universidad Nacional Aut=C3=B3noma de M=C3=A9xico