Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 22:46 +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > Marc Haber writes: > > > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:37:03 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > On Jan 05, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > People who have been using a

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:37:03 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: >On Jan 05, Ian Jackson wrote: > >> People who have been using a configuration for many years naturally >> become upset when they are told that it has been `unsupported' for all >> of this time

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Marc Haber writes: > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:37:03 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: >>On Jan 05, Ian Jackson wrote: >> >>> People who have been using a configuration for many years naturally >>> become upset when they are

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 02:56:24AM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: > I've backported the two upstream patches that fix this (which amount to > the same change that your patch does) and have added them with the > proper metadata attached to them to the git packaging of the policykit > package.

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 06:39:36AM -0200, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote: > No ugly symlinks on root file system, no Bash at /usr/bin/bash! Aesthetically, I find symlinks for /bin etc., in combination with all binaries in /usr/bin, to be prettier than the current situation. (I'd find all binaries in /bin

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 05/01/16 15:55, Ian Jackson wrote: > Abolishing the distinction between /usr and / This seems to be a somewhat frequent point of confusion so, at the risk of beating a dead horse: "Merged /usr" is not about removing the distinction between /usr and /, it's about removing the distinction

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:20:42PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge > > Now that we have union mounts in Linux Do you mean overlayfs? If so can you or anyone vouch for its quality? I had been trying it as a

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 05/01/16 09:49, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> And yet, it works, and it means that we don't have to try to harass a >> thousand package maintainers into doing essentially untestable busy-work >> to try to move things around between /usr, /bin, and

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/06/2016 10:40 AM, Simon McVittie wrote: On 05/01/16 15:55, Ian Jackson wrote: Abolishing the distinction between /usr and / "Merged /usr" is not about removing the distinction between /usr and /, it's about removing the distinction between subdirectories of /usr and the corresponding

Improving recovery (Re: support for merged /usr in Debian)

Simon McVittie debian.org> writes: > I personally think those factors undermine the "/ as recovery" use-case > so far that the advantages of a merged /usr far outweigh it. User side note: If people would like to help the recovery use case, grml-rescueboot is already packaged which adds grub

overlayfs (was: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian)

On Jan 06, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > Do you mean overlayfs? If so can you or anyone vouch for its quality? > I had been trying it as a docker storage back end and generally found > that it was not ready yet. Can you be more specific? I only use it to test new packages and it

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Craig Small writes: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 03:55:51PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: >> What is causing all the heat is the suggestion that support might be >> withdrawn for currently working configurations which _do_ have a /usr >> vs / distinction, or which do mount /usr using

Re: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 11:55:08PM +0100, Eric Valette wrote: > Red hat is mainly for servers nowadays with paying support. As with many Red Hat features, it was first trialled and proven in Fedora, which is very much used on Desktops: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove

Re: overlayfs (was: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian)

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:35:13PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 06, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > > Do you mean overlayfs? If so can you or anyone vouch for its quality? > > I had been trying it as a docker storage back end and generally found > > that it was not ready yet.

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 06 2016, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: support for merged /usr in Debian"): >> On Jan 05 2016, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >> > People who have been using a configuration fo

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > And yet, it works, and it means that we don't have to try to harass a > thousand package maintainers into doing essentially untestable busy-work > to try to move things around between /usr, /bin, and /lib to support a > tiny handful of systems

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 05, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Depending on the operation involved, we consider this to be a bug: > > https://wiki.debian.org/ReadonlyRoot > > Well, perhaps. My point is that currently there are real > configurations that work well with ro /usr but require

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:49:25 + Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > Simon Richter writes ("Re: support for merged /usr in Debian"): > > However, we do have a huge installation base outside of that. In > > most of my embedded systems project

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 05, Ian Jackson wrote: > The reason we are having trouble having both in the same project is > because some of the people who are trying to do what you describe as > "excellent supports for PCs" think that that is the only interesting > objective. I am not

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 2016-01-05, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> And yet, it works, and it means that we don't have to try to harass a >> thousand package maintainers into doing essentially untestable busy-work >> to try to move things around between

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

]] Paul Wise > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > And yet, it works, and it means that we don't have to try to harass a > > thousand package maintainers into doing essentially untestable busy-work > > to try to move things around between /usr, /bin, and /lib to support a

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 05, Ian Jackson wrote: > People who have been using a configuration for many years naturally > become upset when they are told that it has been `unsupported' for all > of this time and that, implicitly, changes are going to be made which > will break it. I

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Hi, On 05.01.2016 19:37, Marco d'Itri wrote: > There is a significant difference between concepts like: > - something works for me > - something works > and: > - I want something to be supported > - the people actually working on something want to support it What is the recourse for people who

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: support for merged /usr in Debian"): > On Jan 05, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > > or which do mount /usr using / rather than initramfs, or some such. > > And this has already not been supported for many years, even i

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

]] Ian Jackson > This thread contains a fair few assertions that certain configurations > are `broken' or `unsupported'; but these assertions sit alongside > reports from actual users that these configurations do work for them, > and expressions of the wish that they should continue to do so. A

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 05, Ian Jackson wrote: > /etc contains files which are modified during normal operation. Depending on the operation involved, we consider this to be a bug: https://wiki.debian.org/ReadonlyRoot -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: support for merged /usr in Debian"): > On Jan 05, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > > /etc contains files which are modified during normal operation. > > Depending on the operation involved, we consider this to be a

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > The check doesn't seem to be complete, it's not complaining about PAM > modules needing libcurl or libkrb5 for instance. Could you file a bug? -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Sune Vuorela wrote: > Does it also catch when for example a udev configuration file wants to > run an executable living under /usr ? Doesn't look like it, could you file a bug? -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/06/2016 02:55 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: support for merged /usr in Debian"): >> On Jan 05 2016, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >>> People who have been using a configuration for many years naturally &

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 05 2016, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: support for merged /usr in Debian"): >> On Jan 05, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >> > or which do mount /usr using / rather than ini

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 03:55:51PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > AFAICT the original posting in this thread is from someone who is > trying to make it easier and more automatic to try to produce Debian > installations which do not have a /usr vs / distinction. I think a lot of heat in this thread is

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

* Paul Wise , 2016-01-05, 17:49: And yet, it works, and it means that we don't have to try to harass a thousand package maintainers into doing essentially untestable busy-work to try to move things around between /usr, /bin, and /lib to support a tiny handful of systems for

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/06/2016 12:54 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 08:10:00PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: >> On 05.01.2016 19:37, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> >>> There is a significant difference between concepts like: >>> - something works for me >>> - something works >> >>> and: >>> - I want

tiny-initrd (was: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian)

On 01/03/2016 09:35 PM, Christian Seiler wrote: > Well, just for the heck of it I wrote a braindead-simple initrd > implementation in just 300 LOC: > > https://gist.github.com/chris-se/e0fbc073fcbd9ac2d7ae > > [...] > > This is just a proof of concept, [...] Well, in case anyone's interested:

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 08:10:00PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > On 05.01.2016 19:37, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > There is a significant difference between concepts like: > > - something works for me > > - something works > > > and: > > - I want something to be supported > > - the people actually

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 2016-01-04 11:30, Marc Haber wrote: On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 22:30:24 +0100, Eric Valette wrote: System admins do like using absolute path for security reasons... Please also notice that this is the only option for ExecStart in systemd units. Well played, Lennart.

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: support for merged /usr in Debian"): > On Jan 02, Joerg Jaspert <jo...@debian.org> wrote: > > No, /etc can be nicely ro. That is, /, /usr, /etc, ... can be. The log > > storage and the user homes, as well as a tmp filesystem rw, rest

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Simon Richter writes ("Re: support for merged /usr in Debian"): > However, we do have a huge installation base outside of that. In most of > my embedded systems projects, Debian has been the starting point for the > customized installation, simply because before jessie, you

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: support for merged /usr in Debian"): > On Jan 05 2016, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > > People who have been using a configuration for many years naturally > > become upset when they are told that it has been `unsupp

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/06/2016 12:54 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > For example, policykit-1 FTBFSes on non-systemd architectures > (#798769) I'd also like to note that while you provided a patch, you didn't really provide much context for this - and left a lot of work to the maintainers when it comes to integrating

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Am 04.01.2016 um 19:12 schrieb Eric Valette: >> Remember that / and /usr don't have to reside on the same partition with >> the usrmerge proposal: they only have to be both available >> post-initramfs. The initramfs already takes care to mount /usr (for the >> systemd case as initscripts needs

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:28:14 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >I do understand why people working in the embedded space care about some >unusual mount orderings, file system separations, and very light cores, >and I hope that we can accomodate and support all of their use cases >inside

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:01:46 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >Marc Haber writes: >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:28:14 -0800, Russ Allbery >> wrote: >>>But I don't get why people who are using non-embedded UNIX systems >>>particularly

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 23:55:08 +0100, Eric Valette wrote: >cannot really accommodate the /etc/defaut/pkg >configurable options... This will get worse, btw, since the systemd community ponders removing the EnvironmentFile option since "all distributions are using it wrong",

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 22:30:24 +0100, Eric Valette wrote: >System admins do like using absolute path >for security reasons... Please also notice that this is the only option for ExecStart in systemd units. Well played, Lennart. Greetings Marc --

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 21:35:39 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: >So that was the state in February of 2011, when the warning was added >to systemd and the systemd developers recommended the use of the >initrd: mounting /usr from a running system is broken. Either it is >already

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Marc Haber writes: > On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:28:14 -0800, Russ Allbery > wrote: >>But I don't get why people who are using non-embedded UNIX systems >>particularly care. > > I, for example, am afraid of having to merge /usr in existing systems >

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 19:15:18 +0100, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: >Anyway, if you think that the merged /usr scheme is about systemd then >you are automatically disqualified from taking part in this discussion >because you are not understanding the basic underlying issues. As friendly as

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:14:14 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >Note that mounting /usr early, something we *already do*, is separate from >actually merging /usr with /bin and /lib. Once you mount /usr early, it's >rather less important whether you actually merge the file systems.

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 22:06:32 +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote: >From my 25 year Unix experience i dont like the usr merge. Agreed. > As you sum >up very nicely and i agree on is that Debian has given up on being >slim at this point. There is no such thing as a single user mode boot >with

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 08:43:02PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 04.01.2016 um 19:12 schrieb Eric Valette: > >> Remember that / and /usr don't have to reside on the same partition with > >> the usrmerge proposal: they only have to be both available > >> post-initramfs. The initramfs already

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 2016-01-04 23:41:40, Eric Valette wrote: > On 04/01/2016 20:43, Michael Biebl wrote: > > >an initramfs is not mandatory as long as you don't have /usr on a > >separate partition. > >No initramfs + split /usr is not supported and has been broken for a while. > > Did you actually test it? It

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 22:21:06 +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: >On 2016-01-04 12:03:07, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 19:15:18 +0100, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: >> >Anyway, if you think that the merged /usr scheme is about systemd then >> >you are automatically

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 04/01/2016 20:43, Michael Biebl wrote: an initramfs is not mandatory as long as you don't have /usr on a separate partition. No initramfs + split /usr is not supported and has been broken for a while. Did you actually test it? It works for me TM on fairly simple setup... -- eric

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Am 05.01.2016 um 01:17 schrieb Adam Borowski: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 08:43:02PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: >> Am 04.01.2016 um 19:12 schrieb Eric Valette: Remember that / and /usr don't have to reside on the same partition with the usrmerge proposal: they only have to be both

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 2016-01-04 12:03:07, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 19:15:18 +0100, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > >Anyway, if you think that the merged /usr scheme is about systemd then > >you are automatically disqualified from taking part in this discussion > >because you are not

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/05/2016 01:34 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 22:21:06 +0100, Iustin Pop > wrote: >> On 2016-01-04 12:03:07, Marc Haber wrote: >>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 19:15:18 +0100, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: Anyway, if you think that the merged /usr scheme is

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/05/2016 01:17 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 08:43:02PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: >> Am 04.01.2016 um 19:12 schrieb Eric Valette: Remember that / and /usr don't have to reside on the same partition with the usrmerge proposal: they only have to be both

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 05 2016, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 22:21:06 +0100, Iustin Pop > wrote: >>On 2016-01-04 12:03:07, Marc Haber wrote: >>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 19:15:18 +0100, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: >>> >Anyway, if you think that the

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/04/2016 12:15 PM, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:01:46 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt >> Remember that / and /usr don't have to reside on the same partition with >> the usrmerge proposal: they only have to be both available >> post-initramfs. The initramfs already takes care to mount

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/04/2016 11:44 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 21:35:39 +0100, Christian Seiler > wrote: >> So that was the state in February of 2011, when the warning was added >> to systemd and the systemd developers recommended the use of the >> initrd: mounting /usr from a

Re: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Remember that / and /usr don't have to reside on the same partition with the usrmerge proposal: they only have to be both available post-initramfs. The initramfs already takes care to mount /usr (for the systemd case as initscripts needs updates for sysvinit as was said

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/04/2016 11:41 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:28:14 -0800, Russ Allbery > wrote: >> I do understand why people working in the embedded space care about some >> unusual mount orderings, file system separations, and very light cores, >> and I hope that we can

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Hello all. On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 01:23:06AM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 05.01.2016 um 01:17 schrieb Adam Borowski: > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 08:43:02PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > >> Am 04.01.2016 um 19:12 schrieb Eric Valette: > Remember that / and /usr don't have to reside on

Re: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Remember that / and /usr don't have to reside on the same partition with the usrmerge proposal: they only have to be both available post-initramfs. The initramfs already takes care to mount /usr (for the systemd case as initscripts needs updates for sysvinit as was said elsewhere). So no

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Iustin Pop wrote: > On 2016-01-03 12:59:01, Tom H wrote: >> >> I don't like usr-merge because it goes against my historical >> expectation that "/{,s}bin" be separate from their /usr namesakes and >> contain binaries required for boot. > > OK, so

Re: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 21:34 +0100, Eric Valette wrote: > > > > This is not true: you just need to use an initramfs. > > > Ok, so it should warn that this setup will soon require to use an > > > initramfs. > > It is the Debian default, there is no need to do this. > > Being debian installer

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/03/2016 04:23 AM, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote: > This "UseMerge" just brings more insanity into Debian. What is wrong > with you guys?! For God's sake... Even if you disagree with something, please don't call it insanity. > It violates the FHS 2.3 standards. Sure, if you mean the sentence that

Re: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

I'm confused why you think anything will break. There would obviously be symlinks, so anything that's currently in /bin will continue to work if invoked with an absolute /bin path. I consider linking across file system a very bad practice because if /usr gets errors all the symlinks may be

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/04/2016 12:39 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 21:35 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: > [...] >> >> Well, just for the heck of it I wrote a braindead-simple initrd >> implementation in just 300 LOC: >> >> https://gist.github.com/chris-se/e0fbc073fcbd9ac2d7ae > [...] > > Neat.

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/03/2016 12:03 PM, Daniel Reurich wrote: > On 03/01/16 23:18, Ben Hutchings wrote: > >>> Then why is it that since the introduction of systemd is having /usr on >>> a separate partition suddenly considered evil and systemd complains >>> loudly about it. It always has worked and does work

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 03/01/2016 22:10, Russ Allbery wrote: Eric Valette writes: The problem of getting /usr mounted before things start using it is mostly separate from the question of whether we want to merge it with /bin and /lib. This thread is more about the latter than the former.

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 18:35, Christian Seiler wrote: > Well, just for the heck of it I wrote a braindead-simple initrd > implementation in just 300 LOC: > > https://gist.github.com/chris-se/e0fbc073fcbd9ac2d7ae Oho! Cool! > My question would be: would those people here who have separate

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 19:59, Christian Seiler wrote: > On 01/03/2016 10:53 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 18:35, Christian Seiler wrote: > >> My question would be: would those people here who have separate /usr > >> and aren't using initrd be willing to put up

Re: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

>This is not true: you just need to use an initramfs. Ok, so it should warn that this setup will soon require to use an initramfs. It is the Debian default, there is no need to do this. Being debian installer default does not mean any debian users 1) really has any benefit of using it

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Eric Valette writes: > But could you elaborate a bit on "mounting /usr early, something we > *already do*" if you do not implicitly refer to initramfs solution. There are other people who know a lot more about the machinery here than I do, but my understanding is that we

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/02/2016 06:42 PM, Geert Stappers wrote: > To me is this "TheUsrMerge" something like among > * "it is hard too to explain to have /sbin/fsck and not /usr/sbin/fsck" > * "there was a question about /bin/kill and /usr/bin/killall being > inconsequent" > * "we could not agree if

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 16:43, Marco d'Itri wrote: > I just have not found yet how to determine if the system was booted > using an initramfs or not. Does anybody have any hint? I don't think there is any source for that information that one can really trust ATM, AFAIK. We could add it in

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Eric Valette writes: > If it is just to close once for all the right location philosophical > debate, I would say it will be over priced: changing executable PATH > will just breaks million scripts people have written themselves on top > of original debian install to

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

❦ 3 janvier 2016 22:30 +0100, Eric Valette  : >> The problem of getting /usr mounted before things start using it is mostly >> separate from the question of whether we want to merge it with /bin and >> /lib. This thread is more about the latter than the former.

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 21:35 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: [...] > > Well, just for the heck of it I wrote a braindead-simple initrd > implementation in just 300 LOC: > > https://gist.github.com/chris-se/e0fbc073fcbd9ac2d7ae [...] Neat.  It should probably implement 'ro', 'rw' and 'rootdelay',

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Hi, On 03.01.2016 23:32, Ben Hutchings wrote: > An initramfs is mandatory if using the standard kernel packages, as I > think most people do. Not on embedded systems. While we do have the advantage there that the people putting the system together are generally clueful, it should still remain

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 19:43 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 03, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > > > First, it would be nice to have a preinst check if the system has any > > running services that uses ProtectSystem and offer a choice to stop > > (and restart) them in case

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 01/03/2016 07:15 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 03, Simon Richter wrote: > >>> "I have always done this in a different way" is not a valid use >>> case, sorry. >> "Compatibility" is a very valid use case. Debian is famous

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 2016-01-03 22:22:16, Tom H wrote: > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Iustin Pop wrote: > > On 2016-01-03 12:59:01, Tom H wrote: > >> > >> I don't like usr-merge because it goes against my historical > >> expectation that "/{,s}bin" be separate from their /usr namesakes and >

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 21:21 +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, > > On 03.01.2016 19:15, Marco d'Itri wrote: [...] > > Anyway, if you think that the merged /usr scheme is about systemd then  > > you are automatically disqualified from taking part in this discussion  > > because you are not

Re: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Note that mounting /usr early, something we *already do*, is separate from actually merging /usr with /bin and /lib. Once you mount /usr early, it's rather less important whether you actually merge the file systems. While it does let you do some interesting things, I see it as more of a

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 23:42 +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, > > On 03.01.2016 23:32, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > An initramfs is mandatory if using the standard kernel packages, as I > > think most people do. > > Not on embedded systems. Sure. > While we do have the advantage there that the

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Florian Lohoff writes: > On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 10:14:14AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> No. Debian has basically given up on this; there are way too many >> packages and way too much stuff that would have to be moved to /bin and >> /lib in order to preserve the traditional

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/03/2016 10:53 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 18:35, Christian Seiler wrote: >> My question would be: would those people here who have separate /usr >> and aren't using initrd be willing to put up with something like that? > > I don't know if they will, but

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/03/2016 11:06 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 19:59, Christian Seiler wrote: >> On 01/03/2016 10:53 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016, at 18:35, Christian Seiler wrote: My question would be: would those people here who have

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 13:10 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Eric Valette writes: > > > But could you elaborate a bit on "mounting /usr early, something we > > *already do*" if you do not implicitly refer to initramfs solution. > > There are other people who know a lot more

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 18:10 +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > On 2016-01-03 17:03:02, Simon McVittie wrote: > > […] For > > instance, /bin -> /usr/bin is needed because otherwise #!/bin/sh would > > stop working, […] > > This brings to mind—I wonder if the performance impact of having /bin/sh > be read

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 00:55 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: [...] > Btw. initramfs-tools (via switch_root from util-linux) recursively > deletes the files in the initramfs in a forked-off process right > before exec()ing init. Is that really necessary? Shouldn't the > kernel loose the data of the

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 10:14:14AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Daniel Reurich writes: > > > Ah, so it's actually packages that don't separate device configuration > > logic from the application or daemons properly that has caused the > > brokenness. Can we identify and

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Daniel Reurich writes: ... > Because systemd doesn't work without /usr on the root partition isn't a > good reason either. You are right ... it is a poor reason, because it is pure fantasy. > That just means systemd is broken by design and needs to be fixed. If what

Re: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

What is the "upgrade path" for an older system that has /usr split off? Will it just stop being bootable after upgrading? It just needs to use an initramfs. A standalone /usr without an initramfs IS ALREADY NOT SUPPORTED by systemd. This is not relevant for merged /usr. What is the "upgrade

Re: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 11:40:34AM +0100, Eric Valette wrote: > The debian installer should first loudly warn that having a separated / and > /usr may break things in the future ITYM "already breaks things" -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 03/01/16 23:18, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> Then why is it that since the introduction of systemd is having /usr on >> a separate partition suddenly considered evil and systemd complains >> loudly about it. It always has worked and does work fine for me with >> sysvinit > > systemd complains if

<    1   2   3   >