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 5E8581381F3 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:30:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E73BE0C48; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:30:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vb0-f42.google.com (mail-vb0-f42.google.com [209.85.212.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C414E0C09 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:30:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id e12so3360766vbg.29 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 07:30:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Dukw3BA3YnRQoZZ3fw4HmcwxdMKHuzlwGoDqBwMK7Rc=; b=B867Sks2Bb/WXp8Ayu8MK9EKcq+/VD9qEy6oMkpUahF9srp2tOx0ffGmIurrAOPffv UwsYgOJW8k7NaFvzbnzUQ0L4r/SMutXs++yCXkFn3VLbyk8p2vYnKNfUEmo0Hyq5Ql41 Dkj1VOulPIIDTzj74sfZ6G+tEqT6uQ/mq3VylRBomx3hlczWfHtlIQWI9nKdi3iuAEVD LsOnm0FgmC1VXcAAm8g4K3Y9vQbGdg6wTsZ3owb6nIP8NADJGUSJkxrYt6AnyaqwB48g yauMRmHbV4R6bjEsYNGD5gxBdW/hPZqMg6/+HvgJnC7NKgejTJY6l7BEBiqgHda7igwx Kbrg== 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 X-Received: by 10.58.19.162 with SMTP id g2mr13945820vee.12.1376922616558; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 07:30:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: alon.barlev@gmail.com Received: by 10.58.255.193 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 07:30:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5211226F.2000000@libertytrek.org> <201308182208.43780.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <521142A7.1020702@coolmail.se> <52121D0F.5030004@libertytrek.org> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:30:16 +0300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vbSVRgH9jc1pjV8nHkc4r7KmF0U Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo From: Alon Bar-Lev To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 50bd1827-275d-4cb1-ba3d-bcba528f0113 X-Archives-Hash: 15681c414f58de03f2f46fe42a8b2cd1 On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Alecks Gates wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Tanstaafl wr= ote: >> >> On 2013-08-18 10:55 PM, Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s = wrote: >>> >>> And, putting aside systemd and getting back on topic to the council's >>> decision of (eventually) not supporting separated /usr without an >>> initramfs; have you ever stopped to consider that, perhaps, that's the >>> best *technical* decision? (*gasp*) >> >> >> That is *not* the concern here, Canek, and that should be obvious from t= he comments here. >> >> Repeat: the primary concern is *not* about separate /usr without initram= fs. >> >> The primary concern is that systemd will eventually be shoved down our t= hroats whether we want it or not, and using eudev or mdev or *anything* ot= her than systemd (ie OpenRC/eudev) will. >> > *snip* >> >>> When you have almost all distributions converging on that, and even >>> *the OpenRC maintainer* (which is the one pushing this, BTW, not the >>> systemd guys) supporting that decision, don't you think that perhaps, >>> just*perhaps*, everybody screaming about the sky falling (which, BTW, >>> >>> they are certainly noisy, but I really don't think are that many) are >>> overreacting and even (*gasp* again) wrong? >> >> >> Again, the main issue is not about separate /usr, so please stop trying = to deflect the subject... >> > > Isn't that what this thread is about? "Optional /usr merge in Gentoo" > > Can someone please explain to me what's so hard and/or complicated > about making an initramfs? At this point in time it's extremely > simple for me, but I only manage relatively simple systems (although > I'd like that to change soon). All I do is add one extra line (for > example - "dracut -H --kver=3D3.11.0-rc6") to my kernel install > procedure. > > Granted, the only reason I have an initramfs is for the plymouth > splash screen (other systems aren't desktops) -- but from everything I > can see it's not too complicated otherwise. Yeah... it is not complicated to but Windows as well, or IBM os-390!!! You use a tool that hides the initramfs building, and you are amazed it is simple? The files within the initramfs generation tool are compiled using different tool than portage, they are not updated when distribution is updated, and they are not even at same version within portage tree. It may be acceptable for you... but do not expect everyone will accept your setup. Regards, Alon