Walter Dnes wrote:
I just updated Gentoo on my old backup machine, an 11-year-old Dell
Inspiron 530 desktop, and there's no mention of profile 17.1 in either
"eselect profile list" or "eselect news list". I'm not looking for
extra hassle, but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything
I just updated Gentoo on my old backup machine, an 11-year-old Dell
Inspiron 530 desktop, and there's no mention of profile 17.1 in either
"eselect profile list" or "eselect news list". I'm not looking for
extra hassle, but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything obvious.
--
Walter Dnes
On 8/5/19 8:45 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
Even bigger hack.
I wouldn't be me if I didn't lob these two words out there:
mount namespaces
/me will see himself out now.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
On 8/5/19 6:28 PM, Jack wrote:
However, I keep wondering if an overlay file system might not be of
some use here. Start with /bin, containing only what's necessary to
boot before /usr is available.
I wonder how much of what would need to be in the pre-/usr /bin
directory can be provided by
On 8/5/19 5:34 PM, Mick wrote:
I am not entertaining ad hominem attacks on whoever may have been
involved in such decisions. Only the impacts of such decisions on
gentoo in particular.
:-)
I probably used an incorrect figure of speech and caused confusion.
We're only discussing the merge
On 2019.08.05 19:52, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2019-08-04 19:36, Grant Taylor wrote:
Create the bin and sbin directories inside of the /usr directory
that is the mount point so that they are on the underlying file
system that /usr is mounted over top of. Then copy the needed
binaries to
If I correctly remember the post by Lennart that spawned this entire
debate, there were and are genuine technical reasons why a separate /usr
filesystem doesn't really work anymore. Perhaps fixable _if_ all package
developers (other than init) paid attention but that's not going to
happen.
Now
On 8/5/19 5:52 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Don't you have to go through some extra hoops (a flag to the mount
command or something) to mount over a non-empty directory?
Nope.
I don't recall ever needing to do anything like that in Linux.
I do know that other traditional Unixes are more picky
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 4:53 PM Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
> Don't you have to go through some extra hoops (a flag to the mount
> command or something) to mount over a non-empty directory?
>
>
Not in my experience, I've done it many times (sometimes even on purpose :)
)
--
Manuel A. McLure WW1FA
On 2019-08-04 19:36, Grant Taylor wrote:
> Create the bin and sbin directories inside of the /usr directory that
> is the mount point so that they are on the underlying file system that
> /usr is mounted over top of. Then copy the needed binaries to the
> /usr/bin & /usr/sbin directories on the
On Monday, 5 August 2019 17:17:53 BST Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 8/5/19 4:49 AM, Mick wrote:
> Just because it's the same developers promoting both does not mean that
> any logic / evidence they might provide in support of /usr merge is
> inherently wrong. We should judge the merits of their logic
On 8/5/19 5:45 AM, Mick wrote:
Interesting concept, thanks for sharing.
You're welcome.
Unless I misunderstand how this will work, it will create duplication
of the fs for /bin and /sbin, which will both use extra space and
require managing.
Yes, it will create some duplication. Though I
On 8/5/19 4:49 AM, Mick wrote:
It is being /assertively/ promoted persistently by the same devs.
Okay.
Just because it's the same developers promoting both does not mean that
any logic / evidence they might provide in support of /usr merge is
inherently wrong. We should judge the merits of
On 8/5/19 3:21 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 09:59:06 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
>> I see, I got caught (again) by the favorite gentoo sleight of hand of
>> updating a package and not bumping its version. In my case, eudev.
>
> I've not checked lately, but policy was that if
On Monday, 5 August 2019 02:36:31 BST Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 8/4/19 7:26 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> > I am also using a bit of a hack that I think could be (re)used to allow
> > /usr being a separate file system without /requiring/ an initramfs /
> > initrd. (I'll reply in another email with
On Monday, 5 August 2019 02:26:11 BST Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 8/4/19 12:03 PM, Mick wrote:
> > I don't know more about this, but it seems we are being dragged towards
> > a systemd inspired future, whether the majority of the gentoo community
> > of users want it or not.
>
> How is the /usr
On domenica 21 luglio 2019 13:22:55 CEST Stefano Crocco wrote:
> On domenica 21 luglio 2019 12:44:14 CEST Mick wrote:
> > On Sunday, 21 July 2019 11:17:30 BST Stefano Crocco wrote:
> > > On venerdì 19 luglio 2019 21:02:40 CEST Stefano Crocco wrote:
> > > > On venerdì 19 luglio 2019 18:21:46 CEST
On 2019-08-04 20:01, Dale wrote:
It was discussed on -dev in at least a couple threads I think. I sort
Thanks for that good hint. I did browse through the archives.
--
Sent with eQmail-1.10.3 beta - a fork of djb's famous qmail
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 09:59:06 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> I see, I got caught (again) by the favorite gentoo sleight of hand of
> updating a package and not bumping its version. In my case, eudev.
I've not checked lately, but policy was that if an ebuild change did not
result in differences in
19 matches
Mail list logo
