From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4851A1381F3 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:55:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A0762E0AD8; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:55:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com (mail-wg0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E105E09C3 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:55:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id f12so3713573wgh.26 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 00:55:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lN9RWydtkIoae/u9Z3S/amxuy+NL/Tpac5O9yUKRlMc=; b=LhSebS7jVuCjC9bekc9WRMFir27tsBXa+7WddErxjyfSgSMhFBUKI7u+cGypcu+r+4 c/tbVwpreFST3cGVIMRvyZtU/HCNPvHvMUXqGa1HzmcAtDrICXONQuBlnAvVl4KqsVYa esXZearGZjnMLFU1CiT20cPFI6HkpGx7XThKTUVX866ueJh1sW97YwrizWgbJP0z2Aff A+XzqF/5/mBHhqr4OBP91MR5vep4BQ6zRHaFqUgA1zJ/TNGyqln4PSs8jJzMLF5kQeJ2 ff1oTw6GdsAy3qLjXpNCRq+xH1K7A4vyDWhAZC4vrExADh7OaZjJ1JHgjwFveQjBYNhZ hvEQ== X-Received: by 10.180.100.194 with SMTP id fa2mr2088793wib.44.1381478103204; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 00:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.20.201] (dustpuppy.is.co.za. [196.14.169.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id q5sm3094840wiz.3.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Oct 2013 00:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5257ADAD.7040409@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:50:05 +0200 From: Alan McKinnon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 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] Re: Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim References: <5247E4C2.5040502@gmail.com> <52480720.7070704@googlemail.com> <52480902.9040305@gmail.com> <52481602.6020305@googlemail.com> <52484363.7020309@gmail.com> <52484F5F.5090408@googlemail.com> <52485652.4060308@gmail.com> <5248828F.1000802@gmail.com> <52489E78.7020804@gmail.com> <5248A3F6.2020801@gmail.com> <20131011075427.GA14498@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20131011075427.GA14498@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 25e1ee26-9fb0-4e07-831c-8d12b79e3691 X-Archives-Hash: cc710ac561b79dc3293a6ba6638825e7 On 11/10/2013 09:54, Steven J. Long wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:04:38AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> On 29/09/2013 23:41, Dale wrote: >>> Alan McKinnon wrote: >>>> On 29/09/2013 18:33, Dale wrote: >>>>>> that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news. >>>>>>> And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are >>>>>>> not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes. >>>>> If not, then what was it? You seem to know what it was that started it >>>>> so why not share? >>>>> >>>> He already said it. Someone added a hard disk to a PDP-9 (or was it an 11?) >>>> >>>> Literally. It all traces back to that. In those days there was no such >>>> thing as volume management or raid. If you added a (seriously expensive) >>>> disk the only feasible way to get it's storage in the system was to >>>> mount it as a separate volume. >>>> >>>> >From that one single action this entire mess of separate /usr arose as >>>> folks discovered more and more reasons to consider it good and keep it >>>> around > > Yes you elide over that part, but it's central: there were more and more > reasons to consider it good, and to use it. You said it. > > They haven't gone away just because some prat's had a brainwave and needs a > lie-down, not encouragement. In fact most of them are touted as "USPs" in the > propaganda we get told is a reasoned argument for ditching all our collective > experience. > >>> >>> That wasn't the question tho. My question wasn't about many years ago >>> but who made the change that broke support for a seperate /usr with no >>> init thingy. The change that happened in the past few years. >>> >>> I think I got my answer already tho. Seems William Hubbs answered it >>> but I plan to read his message again. Different thread tho. >> >> >> >> Nobody "broke" it. >> >> It's the general idea that you can leave /usr unmounted until some >> random arb time later in the startup sequence and just expect things to >> work out fine that is broken. >> >> It just happened to work OK for years because nothing happened to use >> the code in /usr at that point in the sequence. > > Actually because people put *thinking* into what things were needed in early > boot and what were not. In fact *exactly the same* thinking that goes into > sorting out an initramfs. Only you don't need to keep syncing it, and you > don't need to worry about missing stuff. Or you never used to, given a > reasonably competent distro. Which was half the point in using one. > > Thankfully software like agetty deliberately has tight linkage, and it's > simple enough to move the two or three things that need it to rootfs; it's > even officially fine as far as portage is concerned (though I do get an > _anticipated_ warning on glibc upgrades.) > >> More and more we are >> seeing that this is no longer the case. >> >> So no-one broke it with a specific commit. > > True enough. Cumulative lack of discipline is to blame, although personally > I blame gmake's insane rewriting of lib deps before the linker even sees > them, that makes $+ a lot less useful than it should be, and imo led to a > general desire not to deal with linkage in the early days of Linux, that > never went away. > >> It has always been broken by >> design becuase it's a damn stupid idea that just happened to work by >> fluke. > > *cough* bullsh1t. > >> IT and computing is rife with this kind of error. > > Indeed: and even more rife with a history of One True Way. So much so > that it's a cliche. Somehow it's now seen as "hip" to be crap at your > craft, unable to recognise an ABI, and cool to subscribe to "N + 1" > True Way, as that's an "innovation" on the old form of garbage. > > And yet GIGO will still apply, traditional as it may be. I have no idea what you are trying to communicate or accomplish with this. All I see in all your responses is that you are railing against why things are no longer the way they used to be. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckinnon@gmail.com