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 1REymD-0004pb-So for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:35:26 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 49BA321C0C1; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:35:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f41.google.com (mail-ww0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C1021C024 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:34:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwe32 with SMTP id 32so194743wwe.4 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:34:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zNqv4+Jgku8SERJdu9Uf/5hkG3t5SLHlIVMn3SQ6EK8=; b=H6TLefW2qIDjO0WERWtgCNLGuV2/pN01HjgAxIgPrp9OSd/3KimgVScl6Yoj/Zr5O/ zGh8+pFZxKK3QnfTxtsGkgiw6gC0fIlo5vNhZzwndTPogaL+pWst50eVrUg7zuW9ukiE M21AG0B+gG1EldIT1tumPWayLkKWoLRAOfCwI= 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 Received: by 10.216.134.1 with SMTP id r1mr927607wei.109.1318664050116; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.234.130 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:34:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E992E82.5010103@gmail.com> References: <4E98601C.3030607@gmail.com> <20111014224110.7acaf5b3@digimed.co.uk> <4E98BBE4.6040306@gmail.com> <4E992E82.5010103@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:34:10 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Apologize to everyone for my nonprofessional From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2FuZWsgUGVsw6FleiBWYWxkw6lz?= To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 075e263d855d283e77466e78f71c43f7 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. =C2=A0I'm going to start on hal and /usr being on / again= . =C2=A0:-P >>> >>> Jeez, 43 years on and you're still going on about it... >>> >>> >> >> Dang, I was only a year old when hal came out? =C2=A0That just doubled m= y age. >> =C2=A0It's closer to what I feel like tho. >> >> I'm still not happy with /usr being required tho. =C2=A0That is still st= anding >> on a bad nerve. =C2=A0Don't worry tho, I got plenty of those bad nerves.= =C2=A0:-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 requir= ed > 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. > I'm telling ya'll, /home is coming. That is just ridiculous. >=C2=A0 We are going to end up where we > can only have one drive in our Linux boxes for the OS and its relatives. 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_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729fe8.= 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 got 7 acres of land here, complete with trees.=C2=A0 If someone can fin= d the > dev that started this mess, I can find some rope.=C2=A0 Just saying.=C2= =A0 ;-)=C2=A0 Oh, I > live half a mile from the river too.=C2=A0 Makes for a good dump site.=C2= =A0 lol > > I noticed the other day that when LVM tries to start, it fails.=C2=A0 I h= ave /var > on a separate partition here.=C2=A0 It was complaining about something on= /var > missing.=C2=A0 So, you may be late in reporting this.=C2=A0 I think it is= already > 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. --=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