Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Monday, April 11, 2016 01:10:15 AM Raymond Jennings wrote: > Please don't do this. I want my system left alone. Please don't top-post, I want to have a logical flow of the text. > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:41 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote: > > On Sunday, April 10, 2016

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

Please don't do this. I want my system left alone. On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:41 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Sunday, April 10, 2016 10:04:42 AM James Le Cuirot wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:09:35 +0200 > > > > "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > > > I

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 10:04:42 AM James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:09:35 +0200 > > "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > > I actually write my own initramfs because neither dracut not > > genkernel end up with a convenient boot system. > > > > I have 2 disks, both

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 04/10/2016 08:14, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: >> >> Create like, a table on the Wiki or some kind of metadata property >> per-package >> that can contain a boolean or tri-state flag indicating whether it works or >> doesn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:18:37PM -0400, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote > > Half the reason we don't officially support running without /usr > > mounted during early boot is that if we actually put everything in / > > that could

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 4/10/16 8:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > Honestly, I'm still not quite sure why we're even having this > discussion. I don't think anybody actually intends to make any > changes at all. If they do, they should issue some kind of plan and > indicate what they're looking for from everybody

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 4/10/16 7:55 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 04/04/2016 21:19, William Hubbs wrote: >> All, >> >> I thought that since the usr merge is coming up again, and since I lost >> track of the message where it was brought up, I would open a >> new thread to discuss it. Why is this coming up? What

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > Create like, a table on the Wiki or some kind of metadata property per-package > that can contain a boolean or tri-state flag indicating whether it works or > doesn't work (or kinda works) on split-usr. Or a tracker on

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 04/04/2016 21:19, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I thought that since the usr merge is coming up again, and since I lost > track of the message where it was brought up, I would open a > new thread to discuss it. > > When it came up before, some were saying that the /usr merge violates > the

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:09:35 +0200 "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > I actually write my own initramfs because neither dracut not > genkernel end up with a convenient boot system. > > I have 2 disks, both encrypted. > I prefer only to enter the decryption password once. Both Dracut

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Saturday, April 09, 2016 09:07:46 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:09 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote: > > I actually write my own initramfs because neither dracut not genkernel end > > up with a convenient boot system. > > > > I have 2 disks, both encrypted. > > I

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 10/04/16 04:49, Rich Freeman wrote: > 1. As you point out, its not a package. That means it works > differently than everything else, and it can't be used as a > dependency/etc. > 2. Genkernel's initramfs isn't all that great. Don't get me wrong - > it was very good back when it was new.

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 11:28 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > Ok I'm gonna push the Big Red Button here, and assume you may not have > met 'genkernel' .. Genkernel has been around for a LONG time. I'm well aware of it. > ok its not a package, but its the nearest thing to >

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 10/04/16 04:08, Rich Freeman wrote: > I think the bigger issue with the kernel is the huge configuration > space it has. Chromium may have a ton of USE flags compared to most > packages, but those pale in comparison to the kernel. Obviously it > would not make sense to try to create a USE

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:17 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > I take your point, but I would argue that the kernel and boot subsystem > really are special cases .. you don't go hacking around the chromium > sources to fundamentally alter the way/order it works, right?! Likewise, >

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 10/04/16 03:06, Rich Freeman wrote: > > By that argument, when you run emerge chromium shouldn't it just dump > the chromium sources in /usr/src, so that you can build and install > your own chromium? > > The whole point of a source-based package manager is that it actually > BUILDs the

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:35 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > I think that is the potential for a stage4-style install. I think > previous list discussions have maintained that the flexibility of gentoo > is maintained by having a very basic install image, and a stage3 to >

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 10/04/16 02:14, Rich Freeman wrote: > Part of me also wonders if Gentoo would be better off having emerge > gentoo-sources actually BUILD the kernel and initramfs and not just > dump a bunch of sources on the disk. Most distros consider an > initramfs a no-brainer because it just ships already

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:37 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > I may have contributed to the latter point, but addressing the former > specifically, I, like others, have /usr mounted on an NFS server for > thin clients (not in the full-true sense, but with a very minimal / >

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:09 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote: > > I actually write my own initramfs because neither dracut not genkernel end up > with a convenient boot system. > > I have 2 disks, both encrypted. > I prefer only to enter the decryption password once. Both Dracut and

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Philip Webb wrote: > 160409 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Philip Webb > wrote: > >> I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable : > >> I never see questions re it here, but there

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 10/04/16 00:53, William Hubbs wrote: > > The original discussion was about the usr merge [1], which is taking the > binary parts of / and putting them in /usr, then inserting symlinks in / > to preserve backward compatibility. Yes, I'm pointing to a document on > fdo, but the systemd guys have

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Saturday, April 09, 2016 05:15:08 PM James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:09:38 -0400 > > waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > > I never really got the mentality that using an initramfs is a > > > burden. > > > > > One more piece of software that can go wrong. You have to > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

Hi Philip, On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 06:50:49PM -0400, Philip Webb wrote: > Can you or anyone else answer my other question re the origin of the thread ? > -- ie is this a revival of not putting /usr on its own partition > or is it a new proposal to alter the file system in some other way ? The

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 09/04/16 23:50, Philip Webb wrote: > 160409 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Philip Webb wrote: >>> I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable : >>> I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub. >>> I do use recent

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

160409 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Philip Webb wrote: >> I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable : >> I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub. >> I do use recent hardware, a cutting-edge machine I built 6 mth

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Philip Webb wrote: > 160409 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> You use LILO : that means, you don't use UEFI : >> that means, almost certainly, you don't use recent hardware. > > I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable : > I never see

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 09/04/16 20:53, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Philip Webb wrote: >> I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable : >> I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub. >> I do use recent hardware, a cutting-edge machine I built 6

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Philip Webb wrote: > I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable : > I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub. > I do use recent hardware, a cutting-edge machine I built 6 mth ago . > When setting it up, I suppressed

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

160409 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > You use LILO : that means, you don't use UEFI : > that means, almost certainly, you don't use recent hardware. I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable : I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub. I do use recent hardware, a

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

Le 09/04/16 à 17:15, James Le Cuirot a tapoté : > Errm, have you ever actually used dracut? > > dracut --kver 4.5 > > Wow, that was hard! It requires zero configuration [...] Sorry. Not true. > $ emerge -pv dracut > > [...] > > The following keyword changes are necessary to proceed: > (see

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Saturday, April 9, 2016 5:11:30 PM CEST, William Hubbs wrote: ... if we don't make it optional we're going to cause some serious headaches for people who are invested in the current status quo. ... gen_usr_ldscript is only needed if you are using separate /usr without an initramfs. This

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 17:15 Sat 09 Apr, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:09:38 -0400 > waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > > > I never really got the mentality that using an initramfs is a > > > burden. > > > > One more piece of software that can go wrong. You have to > > maintain+configure it;

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:09:38 -0400 waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > I never really got the mentality that using an initramfs is a > > burden. > > One more piece of software that can go wrong. You have to > maintain+configure it; e.g. sync software and library versions with > what's on the

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 07:11:31AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote > It was simply a recognition that we were already in a state where > booting a system without /usr mounted early can cause problems. For certain edge cases... yes. But they were already using initramfs or merging /usr into /. I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 12:06:47AM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 4/8/16 11:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Anthony G. Basile > > wrote: > >> > >> Alternatively, this may introduce problems. So it seems like we're > >> fixing something

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

> On Apr 8, 2016, at 8:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:20:24PM -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> Based on what I've read here in the thread, merging /bin and /sbin >> into /usr/{sbin,bin} is a matter of convenience by putting most of the >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 09/04/16 14:37, Rich Freeman wrote: > I've certainly haven't had many problems with dracut. When it fails > it is usually because I'm doing something ELSE that is off-the-wall > and it just doesn't have a plugin for it yet. (And in those cases it > isn't like the kernel tends to get it right

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 08/04/16 14:55, Rich Freeman wrote: > The purpose of a /usr merge is to get all the stateless stuff into one place. beside what you have in /etc ... usr-merge, in practice just moves early-boot/core tools where the rest of the userspace lives. > Some of the ultimate goals include: > 1. A

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 4/9/16 7:16 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 4/9/16 6:56 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Personally, I think our users would be better-served by making it a >> choice. > > Rich, we can bike shed for days. It would just be nice to hear from > base-layout people whether it will be a choice or not.

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 09/04/16 13:53, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Put the very same stuff in the initramfs? Most initramfs creation >> scripts should already do this automatically, and with compat symlinks >> even those that don't probably will

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 09/04/16 13:53, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: >> On 05/04/16 03:19, William Hubbs wrote: >>> Thoughts on any of this? >> >> The whole usr-merge moves the problem of putting stuff in / to putting >> the very same stuff in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 05/04/16 03:19, William Hubbs wrote: >> Thoughts on any of this? > > The whole usr-merge moves the problem of putting stuff in / to putting > the very same stuff in the initrd when something different from busybox > (or

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 05/04/16 03:19, William Hubbs wrote: > Thoughts on any of this? The whole usr-merge moves the problem of putting stuff in / to putting the very same stuff in the initrd when something different from busybox (or equivalent) is needed to get the early boot mounting. Do we have a reliable way to

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 4/9/16 6:56 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > Personally, I think our users would be better-served by making it a > choice. Rich, we can bike shed for days. It would just be nice to hear from base-layout people whether it will be a choice or not. We need to know that so we can plan accordingly. --

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 1:32 AM, wrote: > > now - an arbitrary decree comes down that *EVERYBODY* who wants a > separate /usr needs to have initramfs. > The "decree" wasn't some kind of law that the Gentoo police will come out to your house and arrest you for violating.

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 4/8/16 11:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> What problems are you anticipating, especially in light of the fact >> that many distros actually do it this way already? > > RBAC policy files for one. You'll probably

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:59:09PM -0400, Damien Levac wrote > > > Seriously... how many people run Bluetooth keyboards on Gentoo > > anyways? > > That you ask such a question is concerning to me. Are we > discriminating against normal desktop users now? Here's the item that really bugs

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 4/8/16 11:54 PM, Damien Levac wrote: >> I personally think sharing /usr over a network and deploying it to >> multiple machines could be a recipe for disaster. > > Uh... it is a nice opinion, but when you are managing 1000+ machines, > scripting is not cutting it anymore. Obviously we are

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 4/8/16 11:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> >> Alternatively, this may introduce problems. So it seems like we're >> fixing something that isn't broken. >> > > What problems are you anticipating, especially in light

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

> Seriously... how many people run Bluetooth keyboards on Gentoo >anyways? That you ask such a question is concerning to me. Are we discriminating against normal desktop users now? -- Damien Levac

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

>I personally think sharing /usr over a network and deploying it to >multiple machines could be a recipe for disaster. Uh... it is a nice opinion, but when you are managing 1000+ machines, scripting is not cutting it anymore. Obviously we are network distributing it. Not that we aren't already

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > Alternatively, this may introduce problems. So it seems like we're > fixing something that isn't broken. > What problems are you anticipating, especially in light of the fact that many distros actually do it this

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 4/8/16 9:36 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:11:48PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> On 4/8/16 8:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> >>> >>> It is true that we offer a high degree of choice to users, but one of >>> those choices is not which paths to install binaries and

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:11:48PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 4/8/16 8:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > > It is true that we offer a high degree of choice to users, but one of > > those choices is not which paths to install binaries and libraries > > into. > > I thought vapier was

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 04/08/2016 08:18 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote > >> Half the reason we don't officially support running without /usr >> mounted during early boot is that if we actually put everything in / >> that could conceivably be needed

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote > Half the reason we don't officially support running without /usr > mounted during early boot is that if we actually put everything in / > that could conceivably be needed during early boot we'd end up with > everything there.

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:18:58PM -0400, Joseph Booker wrote > > From my own experience, it is useful to run "ifconfig" or "mount" > as a regular user, same as the gimp or firefox commands. Given that > all the commands you listed are in /usr/bin or /bin, I think I'm > not the only one. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 4/8/16 8:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > It is true that we offer a high degree of choice to users, but one of > those choices is not which paths to install binaries and libraries > into. I thought vapier was introducing a switch USE=usr-sep which allowed us to keep an unmerged /usr, or are

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:20:24PM -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote: > Based on what I've read here in the thread, merging /bin and /sbin > into /usr/{sbin,bin} is a matter of convenience by putting most of the > static parts of a running system into a single path. As mentioned by > some people,

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 04/08/2016 04:31 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 4/8/16 6:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:42 PM, William Hubbs >> wrote: >>> >>> There was a bypo here. "the ebuild" should be upstream. The >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Joseph Booker wrote: > The difference between "system software" and "regular applications" isn't > clear-cut. > This. Half the reason we don't officially support running without /usr mounted during early boot is that if we actually put

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:20:19AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote > > Here is more info about the split and why it exists. It turns out it hs > nothing to do with system admininistration or permissions. > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html >

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:14 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > Being serious though, and playing Devil's Advocate of course, assuming > you have no use for a desktop manager, etc, hence no need for dbus or > it's 'friends' and policykit or it's pals, and you're not a "systemd > fan"

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Friday, April 8, 2016 5:14:42 PM CEST, M. J. Everitt wrote: On 08/04/16 16:02, Rich Freeman wrote: The only mandatory component in a linux system, by definition, is the Linux kernel. A linux system could consist of nothing but a kernel with init=/usr/local/bin/hello-world. Most traditional

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 08/04/16 16:02, Rich Freeman wrote: > > The only mandatory component in a linux system, by definition, is the > Linux kernel. > > A linux system could consist of nothing but a kernel with > init=/usr/local/bin/hello-world. > > Most traditional linux distros are going to run policykit though.

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 08/04/16 16:02, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:33 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> I'll come back to the links a bit later, but is policykit and its >> predecessor/derivatives now a mandatory part of a linux system? >> > The only mandatory component in a linux

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:33 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > I'll come back to the links a bit later, but is policykit and its > predecessor/derivatives now a mandatory part of a linux system? > The only mandatory component in a linux system, by definition, is the Linux kernel.

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 08/04/16 15:20, William Hubbs wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:44:06AM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> 3) I still believe there is merit in distinguishing between binaries >> that can/should be run as root, and those that can/should not. Those >> that run as root 100% of the time, or use VMs,

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:44:06AM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote: > 3) I still believe there is merit in distinguishing between binaries > that can/should be run as root, and those that can/should not. Those > that run as root 100% of the time, or use VMs, don't really 'use' linux > in the original

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > As I'm getting into this thread, I'm looking at debian, fedora and I'll > add openSUSE. I just don't get why a usr merge is as good as that > fedora page says. > Keep in mind Fedora's purposes here: 1. It is a

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 4/8/16 7:41 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 07:31:03 -0400 > "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: > >> On 4/8/16 6:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:42 PM, William Hubbs >>> wrote: There was a bypo here. "the

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:41 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 07:31:03 -0400 > "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: >> >> @anyone, can you list the reasons we're doing this (I'm sure there's >> more than one). If systemd if one of them, then I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 07:31:03 -0400 "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: > On 4/8/16 6:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:42 PM, William Hubbs > > wrote: > >> > >> There was a bypo here. "the ebuild" should be upstream. The default > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 4/8/16 6:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> >> There was a bypo here. "the ebuild" should be upstream. The default >> installation location of all coreutils binaries is /usr/bin, then we >> move everything around in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:44 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > 2) "Today, a separate /usr partition already must be mounted by the > initramfs during early boot, thus making the justification for a > split-off moot." - no, not all gentoo users have an initramfs and > need/want one

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > There was a bypo here. "the ebuild" should be upstream. The default > installation location of all coreutils binaries is /usr/bin, then we > move everything around in the ebuild. > We are deviating from upstream in this

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

My personal opinion: Unless we have a good reason to do otherwise, don't fuck with upstream. On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Damien Levac wrote: > > > Three points :- > > 1) systemd - not all gentoo users subscribe to this 'philosophy' .. >but > >no, I don't want get

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

> Three points :- > 1) systemd - not all gentoo users subscribe to this 'philosophy' .. >but >no, I don't want get drawn into debates of yes/no of systemd .. The article start by saying the points are not just for systemd, even though the latter might find the merge more 'needed'... >2) "Today,

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 08/04/16 03:36, Damien Levac wrote: > Anybody who have this kind of misconception about 'usr merge' should > read this: > > https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/ > > Signed, > > a user who got scared by this thread and documented myself before > freaking out

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

Anybody who have this kind of misconception about 'usr merge' should read this: https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/ Signed, a user who got scared by this thread and documented myself before freaking out too much... >> Personally I think that merging things

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:39:07PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 01:18:01PM -0700, Raymond Jennings wrote: > > Personally I think that merging things into /usr is a major policy decision > > that is likely to contravene upstream installation locations. I wouldn't > > do it

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 2:32 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > In the spirit of hearing arguments for/against .. could someone with the > appropriate 'fu' throw up a quick survey for those on this ML (and/or > possibly the g-users?) to indicate a preference for a change to a >

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 07/04/16 17:36, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 6:22:16 PM CEST, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Again, I don't see this as a reason not to make it optional, but I >> suspect that we will find bugs here from time to time which users who >> run with the split /usr will have to

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

May I suggest first moving everything into /usr one at a time, and for each file moved out of /bin or /sbin or whatever, replace it with a symlink? This will allow the /bin and /sbin directories themselves to atomically be replaced with symlinks later. Doing it all at once will leave a gap. For

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 6:22:16 PM CEST, Rich Freeman wrote: Again, I don't see this as a reason not to make it optional, but I suspect that we will find bugs here from time to time which users who run with the split /usr will have to report/fix. Considering the advantages of usr-merge are

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:12:13AM +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 11:36:09 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote: > > As for those benefits, they do little for {/usr,}/sbin vs > > {/usr,}/bin, which is where the incompatibilities tend to live. > > I encountered one of these in

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > On Apr 6, 2016, at 3:42 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:15:58 AM CEST, Richard Yao wrote: >>> >>> Here are the violations: >>> >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 11:36:09 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote: As for those benefits, they do little for {/usr,}/sbin vs {/usr,}/bin, which is where the incompatibilities tend to live. I encountered one of these in powertop the other day (patch pending). The benefits of being able to access

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 5:52:52 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote: The original purpose of the /usr merge in Solaris was to make managing updates easier. Redhat realized that and copied it. Copying it too without doing the enabling work necessary for a rolling distribution would be setting a trap

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:36:09PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: > > > >> On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:43 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 11:52:52AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: > >>> On 04/06/2016 10:58 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > >>> What, if any, is the

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

>> On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:43 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 11:52:52AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>> On 04/06/2016 10:58 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>> What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr out of the equation? I >>> happen to have a few

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 11:52:52AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: > On 04/06/2016 10:58 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr out of the equation? I > > happen to have a few workstations that load their /usr off an NFS share > > presently, with some

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 04/06/2016 12:33 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > On 04/06/2016 12:20 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:06:35 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote: >> >>> That is unless you put per-system state in /usr/local, do symlinks to it >>> in / and mount /usr/local as part of system boot, which

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:15:58AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote > If others are not willing to be advocates for ***THOSE USERS THAT WOULD > ONLY MAKE THEMSELVES KNOWN AFTER AN A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE > AND PEOPLE ARE DETERMINED TO GO AHEAD WITH THIS***, I suggest having > and testing a

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:57:20 PM CEST, Alexis Ballier wrote: usr-merge does not deal with that at all. usr-merge deals with the intracate dependencies of /usr onto /lib, /bin, etc. by now that I read this again: 'etc.' was the shortcut for 'et caetera' and has nothing to do with /etc

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:33:41 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote: On 04/06/2016 12:20 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:06:35 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote: ... Leveraging the /usr merge to enable easier updating of multiple systems means that you are updating a Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 04/06/2016 12:20 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:06:35 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote: > >> That is unless you put per-system state in /usr/local, do symlinks to it >> in / and mount /usr/local as part of system boot, which is the other way >> of doing this. I have seen a

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 04/06/2016 12:06 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > On 04/06/2016 11:11 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 4:58:05 PM CEST, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>> What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr out of the equation? I >>> happen to have a few workstations that load their /usr off

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:06:35 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote: That is unless you put per-system state in /usr/local, do symlinks to it in / and mount /usr/local as part of system boot, which is the other way of doing this. I have seen a variant of this done in asuswrt-merlin on routers.

  1   2   >