On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:07:18AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2013 18:17:29 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On May 09, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org wrote:
Or in other words: to make essential functionality not available if
/usr is broken.
Again: this is not we
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 12:03:43PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 11:50:31AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
If you make /usr a symlink to / then there will be to distinct paths
to each file and that will confuse dpkg.
The first problem that comes to mind is package
Le 11/05/2013 20:05, Aron Xu a écrit :
An easy example is that, on Solaris, there is a something called boot
environment (BE), which is essentially snapshots of the combination of
/usr and /boot, users can switch between different BEs easily without
affecting any user data. Without /usr merge,
2013/5/12 Stéphane Glondu glo...@debian.org:
What about /etc ? /var ? both contain data that can mess up with a
running system...
All go into a snapshot.
That's why I stand for moving /var/lib/mysql and similar things out of /var
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On May 12, Stéphane Glondu glo...@debian.org wrote:
What about /etc ? /var ? both contain data that can mess up with a
running system...
The goal (or at least, a possible one) is to be able to update the
operating system (or to snapshot it) while keeping your data and
configurations.
The most
Marco d'Itri md at Linux.IT writes:
People use live CDs for rescue all the time, do you have some data which
show that this is actually a problem in real life and not an imaginary
I’ve had Knoppix destroy the nvram of my laptop’s graphics chipset.
(I sent it in, and all they apparently did
Le vendredi 10 mai 2013 à 14:46 +0100, Roger Leigh a écrit :
There are various benefits, discussed before at length (here,
elsewhere). Suggesting/summarizing this as satisfying Lennart is a bit
telling.
It's still entirely accurate though. This is ultimately being driven by
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 04:06:38PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
And I absolutely do not buy the argument that Debian does not
have enough manpower to keep the / vs. /usr separation (for many
use cases) working.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/08/msg00858.html
When you've
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
On May 07, Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org wrote:
If we do this, I'd prefer to make /usr a symlink to / on new installs
I've always thought that myself, but it seems most folks who are pro
merge tend to propose going the
2013/5/11 Aron Xu a...@debian.org:
An easy example is that, on Solaris, there is a something called boot
environment (BE), which is essentially snapshots of the combination of
/usr and /boot, users can switch between different BEs easily without
affecting any user data. Without /usr merge,
On Thu, 9 May 2013 15:50:45 +0200, Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org
wrote:
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 10:32:09AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
That's how I do it for new installs. However, this is vastly more
complex than the traditional setup, and it doesn't help for systems in
maintenance mode that, for
On Thu, 9 May 2013 18:17:29 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On May 09, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org wrote:
Or in other words: to make essential functionality not available if
/usr is broken.
Again: this is not we are discussing. Essential functionality is moving
to /usr anyway
On May 10, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Having the rescue image _this_ independent is not really desireable
since one would probably have to deal with outdated or non-existing
rescue tools in the independent image while the correct software in
the correct version is on the
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:08:05PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
You have a point here. The problem is that people need to change their
operations, which is hard for many people, let alone the case when
emergency manuals need to be changed just for the sake of satisfying
Lennart.
There are various
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:23:52PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Gah! Just because the other FLOS idiots are doing it doesn’t mean
Debian should follow.
Do you also have technical objections or some kind of reasoning behind
this?
--
Regards,
Olav
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:08:05PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
You have a point here. The problem is that people need to change their
operations, which is hard for many people, let alone the case when
emergency manuals need to be
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 14:46 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:08:05PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
You have a point here. The problem is that people need to change their
operations, which is hard for many people,
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:48:37 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On May 10, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Having the rescue image _this_ independent is not really desireable
since one would probably have to deal with outdated or non-existing
rescue tools in the
On May 10, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Additional work necessary to satisfy upstream's bizarre ideas. Why not
keeping things the way they are now? They work. No need to waste
developer time.
Why make new releases? bo worked fine, there is no need for new features.
People
On Fri, 10 May 2013 19:38:22 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
So this confirms that a live system like GRML is a good replacement for
a rescue system, looks like we solved another use case.
You are trying to turn my word around. Bad style of discussion. EOD on
my part, it's another
On Thu, 9 May 2013 03:31:30 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
This is not relevant for what we are talking about because /usr *will*
be required be available to boot the system no matter where the files
currently in /{bin,sbin,lib} will end up.
Yes. That is really bad news and I hate
On Thu, 9 May 2013 03:43:44 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
Let's assume that at this point there are no files in /{bin,sbin,lib}
which have the same name of a file in /usr/{bin,sbin,lib} but are not
a symlink to them (which I suspect is something that we want anyway).
For each $file
On May 09, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
That's a hack which is acceptable for single-user home desktops. We're
talking about professional IT here.
Great, if this is the strongest objection you have then looks like it
can be done.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 04:56:04PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 05:35:11PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 07, ?? ?? pashev.i...@gmail.com wrote:
What about merging / and /usr ?
An ambitious plan.
I strongly support the everything in /usr scheme,
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:12:12AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
On 05/07/2013 11:41 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 05:36:41PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 07, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote:
No please. We are good about making sure they each mean
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 11:50:31AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
If you make /usr a symlink to / then there will be to distinct paths
to each file and that will confuse dpkg.
The first problem that comes to mind is package A containing /bin/foo
and package B containing /usr/bin/foo.
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 08:14:32PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2013 17:32:13 +0200, Helmut Grohne hel...@subdivi.de
wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 12:19:25PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
Fedora updates are different. (And so are Ubuntu updates, if one considers
that it's possible
On Thu, 9 May 2013 12:33:47 +0100, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net
wrote:
Regarding rescue, the initramfs has a rescue shell which I've found
to be just as useful as single user mode.
Isn't that the one that doesn't even have a shell history or tab
completion?
Once it has mounted the
rootfs,
On Thu, 9 May 2013 10:40:14 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On May 09, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
That's a hack which is acceptable for single-user home desktops. We're
talking about professional IT here.
Great, if this is the strongest objection you have then
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 10:32:09AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
That's how I do it for new installs. However, this is vastly more
complex than the traditional setup, and it doesn't help for systems in
maintenance mode that, for example, cannot be changed because of
service level agreements and
On May 09, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
If you don't care about the companies that use Debian and you want
their sponsoring money to go elsewhere, yes, absolutely do this.
Actually I care a lot, since I happen to have a role in one which
manages quite a bit of Debian servers
* Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it [130509 16:03]:
So, please let me know if you have some technical objections better
than it's an hack.
Having a seperate / means you have an instant rescue image that has
just the right kernel and tools you need to repair the rest of your
system. You also have one
* Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net [130509 13:34]:
The assumptions here are that a separate rootfs decreases the chance
of breakage, and that you'll need the rootfs to perform the rescue.
No, the point is that having two file systems reduces the amout of
breakage you get.
All the important
On May 09, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org wrote:
Or in other words: to make essential functionality not available if
/usr is broken.
Again: this is not we are discussing. Essential functionality is moving
to /usr anyway, no matter if /bin will become a symlink to /usr/bin.
Having a
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:06:41AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 07, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
What about merging / and /usr ?
So we really want to explicitly not offer an upgade path from wheezy
to jessie?
This causes no major issues on upgrades, Fedora did it.
On 05/07/2013 11:41 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 05:36:41PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 07, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote:
No please. We are good about making sure they each mean something
important, and there's no good reason.
Not really nowadays:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:12:12AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
The question, expressed in a number of different ways to provide a type
of clarity by triangulation, is: Why does /usr exist in the first
place? Why was it created, way back in the day? What is its purpose,
what is it for?
On May 08, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote:
The emergency tools side of it I'm less clear on. It's relatively
apt-get install grml-rescueboot
Which is way safer than relying on / working.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 12:19:25PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
Fedora updates are different. (And so are Ubuntu updates, if one considers
that it's possible to provide fixup scripts to update-manager pre-upgrade.)
As long as we're supporting upgrades through plain apt, that's going to
be hard.
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 05:32:13PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
So really what does it take to e.g. move /bin and stuff to /usr? Did
anyone try that? Where is that documented? What problems did occur?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
--
WBR, wRAR
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 05:32:13PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 12:19:25PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
Fedora updates are different. (And so are Ubuntu updates, if one considers
that it's possible to provide fixup scripts to update-manager pre-upgrade.)
As long as
On Wed, 8 May 2013 01:06:41 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On May 07, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
What about merging / and /usr ?
So we really want to explicitly not offer an upgade path from wheezy
to jessie?
This causes no major issues on upgrades, Fedora did
On Wed, 8 May 2013 17:32:13 +0200, Helmut Grohne hel...@subdivi.de
wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 12:19:25PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
Fedora updates are different. (And so are Ubuntu updates, if one considers
that it's possible to provide fixup scripts to update-manager pre-upgrade.)
As long
On May 08, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
If we force a much bigger /, the chance of a broken / filesystem
increases. If / is fine, one has a chance to fix the system without
booting to rescue. So, a small / both decreases the probability of a
boot failure and makes fixing
On May 08, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
How would that be done for a 200 MB filesystem holding /, no extra
/boot partition, and a multi-gigabyte /usr beyond the 2T barrier?
Let's assume that at this point there are no files in /{bin,sbin,lib}
which have the same name of a
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 03:43 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 08, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
How would that be done for a 200 MB filesystem holding /, no extra
/boot partition, and a multi-gigabyte /usr beyond the 2T barrier?
Let's assume that at this point there are no
What about merging / and /usr ?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/CALL-Q8zwv5QtT05VA+cQg+OF=paijrt606x2shdte+b4qv2...@mail.gmail.com
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 07:31:36PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
What about merging / and /usr ?
No please. We are good about making sure they each mean something
important, and there's no good reason.
We also support setups that might need this split due to low storage,
such as arm devices.
Let's
On May 07, Игорь Пашев pashev.i...@gmail.com wrote:
What about merging / and /usr ?
An ambitious plan.
I strongly support the everything in /usr scheme, but let's first
consolidate support for standalone /usr must be mounted by the
initramfs.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description:
On May 07, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote:
No please. We are good about making sure they each mean something
important, and there's no good reason.
Not really nowadays: more and more things needed at boot time are in
/usr and there are no plans to fix them.
We also support setups
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 05:36:41PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 07, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote:
No please. We are good about making sure they each mean something
important, and there's no good reason.
Not really nowadays: more and more things needed at boot time are in
2013/5/7 Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org:
Not when you have a 500 meg internal storage that the firmware boots off
of, and using a multi-gig CF card to store the mega-awesome-app you're
using it for.
Similar to Live CDs where /usr used to be compressed on a CD?
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 05:35:11PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 07, Игорь Пашев pashev.i...@gmail.com wrote:
What about merging / and /usr ?
An ambitious plan.
I strongly support the everything in /usr scheme, but let's first
consolidate support for standalone /usr must be mounted by
On May 07, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote:
everything in /usr actually means that supporting these devices is
much easier.
Not when you have a 500 meg internal storage that the firmware boots off
of, and using a multi-gig CF card to store the mega-awesome-app you're
using it
Hi Paul,
This has been discussed many times on -devel, including before you became a DD.
Many people, including Roger and Marco, have spent a *lot* of time thinking
about this and working on proofs of concepts, etc. already. Please take some
time to read up on the previous threads before
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 04:56:04PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
That said, I'm not in support of moving things to /usr; it's completely
backward.
…
If we do this, I'd prefer to make /usr a symlink to / on new installs
I've always thought that myself, but it seems most folks who are pro
merge tend
Quoting Jonathan Dowland (2013-05-07 18:15:46)
This has been discussed many times on -devel, including before you became a
DD.
Please don't assume that only DDs read debian-devel. I would think that
most aspiring DDs were following it long before even applying in NM.
signature.asc
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 11:34:20AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 07:31:36PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
What about merging / and /usr ?
No please. We are good about making sure they each mean something
important,
No, we're actually terrible at it.
And upstream is
On 07/05/13 17:17, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 04:56:04PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
If we do this, I'd prefer to make /usr a symlink to / on new installs
I've always thought that myself, but it seems most folks who are pro
merge tend to propose going the other way.
After
On May 07, Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org wrote:
If we do this, I'd prefer to make /usr a symlink to / on new installs
I've always thought that myself, but it seems most folks who are pro
merge tend to propose going the other way. I've never understood why.
I was trying to not start a new
On 7 May 2013, at 17:26, Simon Chopin chopin.si...@gmail.com wrote:
Please don't assume that only DDs read debian-devel.
Don't worry, I haven't: I just don't know of a more accurate heuristic for
determining when somebody started to get involved.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 05:57:19PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Please don't assume that only DDs read debian-devel.
Don't worry, I haven't: I just don't know of a more accurate heuristic
for determining when somebody started to get involved.
I don't see why, in this context, that's a
On 05/08/2013 12:40 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 11:34:20AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 07:31:36PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
What about merging / and /usr ?
No please. We are good about making sure they each mean something
important,
No, we're
On Tue, 7 May 2013 19:31:36 +0400, ? ? pashev.i...@gmail.com
wrote:
What about merging / and /usr ?
So we really want to explicitly not offer an upgade path from wheezy
to jessie?
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 07:21:26PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I don't see why, in this context, that's a useful heuristic to have. If
you want to debunk someone's argument,
I'm not sure I'd characterize what I tried to get across as debunking someone's
argument. More so, questioning
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 06:57:12PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 07:21:26PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I don't see why, in this context, that's a useful heuristic to have. If
you want to debunk someone's argument,
I'm not sure I'd characterize what I tried to
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:43:03AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 05/08/2013 12:40 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 11:34:20AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 07:31:36PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
What about merging / and /usr ?
No please. We are
On Martes, 7 de mayo de 2013 17:26:09 Simon Chopin wrote:
Quoting Jonathan Dowland (2013-05-07 18:15:46)
This has been discussed many times on -devel, including before you became
a DD.
Please don't assume that only DDs read debian-devel. I would think that
most aspiring DDs were
Marco d'Itri md at Linux.IT writes:
On May 07, Игорь Пашев pashev.igor at gmail.com wrote:
What about merging / and /usr ?
Absolutely not, and I’ll support a GR against it.
I strongly support the everything in /usr scheme, but let's first
Absolutely not, and I’ll support a GR against
On May 07, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
What about merging / and /usr ?
So we really want to explicitly not offer an upgade path from wheezy
to jessie?
This causes no major issues on upgrades, Fedora did it.
The hard part is replacing with a symlink to the other one of every
70 matches
Mail list logo
