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 1REzmJ-0006r8-Rc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:39:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 94E9921C0C1; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:39:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yx0-f180.google.com (mail-yx0-f180.google.com [209.85.213.180]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9140921C0B5 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:37:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yxm34 with SMTP id 34so1804624yxm.11 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:37:50 -0700 (PDT) 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:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1Q/Ft3RunD6ZL5AJOSdj/gt67TXpriLb2AovOZ3FU6k=; b=eEnF3iAIkhPmuLDT0MA/JwcJ56+P5po4Wdu+skXL3vw+CV70lEP2R0F/GlGNPK0N4Q jzw9LwnO+T3iHAhTR/1FbQdpEJUwn4X6Mm21nngF1+PkBU3O3JQtDytownrUN4gcmNjq P1yDVwrkccYFbphdTTGc5E/+p9n+4f02YdRCo= Received: by 10.236.124.114 with SMTP id w78mr17179205yhh.10.1318667868259; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-98-95-215-244.jan.bellsouth.net. [98.95.215.244]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v4sm8754559yhk.3.2011.10.15.01.37.45 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E994657.2030200@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 03:37:43 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111013 Firefox/7.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.4.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Apologize to everyone for my nonprofessional References: <4E98601C.3030607@gmail.com> <20111014224110.7acaf5b3@digimed.co.uk> <4E98BBE4.6040306@gmail.com> <4E992E82.5010103@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 2ba25773b0ee3a153511e6ede591f392 Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Dale wrote: >> Pandu Poluan wrote: >> >> On Oct 15, 2011 5:49 AM, "Dale" wrote: >>> Neil Bothwick wrote: >>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:15:24 -0500, Dale wrote: >>>> >>>>> A'right now. I'm going to start on hal and /usr being on / again. = :-P >>>> Jeez, 43 years on and you're still going on about it... >>>> >>>> >>> Dang, I was only a year old when hal came out? That just doubled my = age. >>> It's closer to what I feel like tho. >>> >>> I'm still not happy with /usr being required tho. That is still stan= ding >>> on a bad nerve. Don't worry tho, I got plenty of those bad nerves. = :-P >>> >> Do you know that there's a plan to move /var/run to / also? ;-) >> >> Rgds, >> >> >> Now someone on here swears up and down that /var isn't going to be req= uired >> on /. > /var !=3D /var/run > /var !=3D /var/lock > > /var/run is going in /run, but /var/run (by definition) only contains > things like PID files and runtime sockets. In the same vein, /var/lock > also is going into /run/lock. I have acknowledged this from the very > beginning, and I have been pointing out that implying that because > those two (really small and bounded) directories of /var are going > into /run and /run/lock, it doesn't mean that the whole /var will go > into /. That is disinformation. > > Nobody has even proposed that /var should go into the same partition > as /. *Nobody*, and the simplest proof of that is that nobody has > produced a single proof to the contrary. Not a single email, blog > post, or wiki entry from any system developer even mentions the > possibility of requiring /var to be in the same partition as /. > > Whoever says that /var will be required to be on the same partition as > / is either wildly speculating, or spreading FUD. So /var/run and /var/lock isn't on /var? Even if they will be linking=20 to another location, the link has to be there for whatever program to=20 follow. If /var isn't mounted yet, there is nothing for the program to=20 find. When I saw the messages about LVM and /var, that caused LVM to fail to=20 start. I wouldn't put / on LVM and wouldn't expect it to work without a=20 init thingy either. Thing is, based on it failing, you can't have /var=20 on a separate partition and expect LVM to start. So, if you use LVM for=20 /usr and/or /var, you have to have a init thingy even if / is on a=20 regular file system. > >> I'm telling ya'll, /home is coming. > That is just ridiculous. I would have said the same thing about /usr a year ago. I'm not saying=20 it is coming next week but . . . > >> We are going to end up where we >> can only have one drive in our Linux boxes for the OS and its relative= s. > And so is this: more FUD. > >> That or we will ALL have to start using the pesky init* thingy. > More FUD: the current proposal (from Zac, the principal coder of > portage, and someone who actually wrotes code and know what he is > talking about) is this: > > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729= fe8.xml > > It basically removes the need for a "pesky init* thingy", although for > the life of me I cannot understand why someone will not see the > technical advantages of actually using an initramfs. I'll have to read his link later. > >> I got 7 acres of land here, complete with trees. If someone can find = the >> dev that started this mess, I can find some rope. Just saying. ;-) = Oh, I >> live half a mile from the river too. Makes for a good dump site. lol >> >> I noticed the other day that when LVM tries to start, it fails. I hav= e /var >> on a separate partition here. It was complaining about something on /= var >> missing. So, you may be late in reporting this. I think it is alread= y >> needed for LVM if /usr or /var is on a separate partition. > Again, get the facts right. If you use LVM you will need to use an > initramfs. If you only use a separated /usr you will be able to use > Zac's proposal. > > In no case whatsoever you will be required to have /var on the same > partition as /. Nobody has ever proposed that. /run and /run/lock are > not /var. > > Regards. No one proposed that /usr was required until just recently. Saying it=20 won't happen really puts you in a bad spot when or if it does. If you=20 know this for sure and certain, I want your crystal ball. Just for the record, I don't want a init thingy because it is yet one=20 more thing to fail when booting. I was forced to use one when I was on=20 Mandrake and I hated it. It isn't the only reason I switched but it was=20 one reason. Now that same reason is coming to Gentoo. Dale :-) :-)