Am 01.10.2013 01:21, schrieb Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike):
El 30/09/13 00:47, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió:
Am 29.09.2013 18:41, schrieb Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike):
El 29/09/13 18:03, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió:
Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury:
On
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 2:31 PM, pk pete...@coolmail.se wrote:
On 2013-09-30 00:04, Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's the general idea that you can leave /usr unmounted until some
random arb time later in the startup sequence and just expect things to
work out fine that is broken.
It just happened
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 2:31 PM, pk pete...@coolmail.se wrote:
On 2013-09-30 00:04, Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's the general idea that you can leave /usr unmounted until some
random arb time later in the startup sequence
On 2013-09-30 00:04, Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's the general idea that you can leave /usr unmounted until some
random arb time later in the startup sequence and just expect things to
work out fine that is broken.
It just happened to work OK for years because nothing happened to use
the code
On 30/09/2013 08:31, pk wrote:
On 2013-09-30 00:04, Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's the general idea that you can leave /usr unmounted until some
random arb time later in the startup sequence and just expect things to
work out fine that is broken.
It just happened to work OK for years because
On 2013-09-30 09:32, Alan McKinnon wrote:
I never mentioned /var at all.
Go back and read again what I did write.
I'm quite aware what you wrote. If you only read what I wrote... English
is not my native language but the word *may* surely cannot be
misunderstood? Ok, I'll make it simple:
If
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:40:45PM +0200, pk wrote
If *something1* at boot time requires access to *something2* at boot
time that isn't available then I would say that *something1* is broken
by design not the *something2*.
What about the case where *something2* *USED TO BE AVAILABLE, BUT
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:05:39 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
If *something1* at boot time requires access to *something2* at boot
time that isn't available then I would say that *something1* is broken
by design not the *something2*.
What about the case where *something2* *USED TO BE
El 30/09/13 00:47, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió:
Am 29.09.2013 18:41, schrieb Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike):
El 29/09/13 18:03, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió:
Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury:
On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
things were broken way
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) klond...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ohh and BTW, /usr was not just added because someone added a harddrive,
in most cases it was used to allow machines contain a very small system
on / which was enough to just boot and mount a
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) klond...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ohh and BTW, /usr was not just added because someone added a harddrive,
in most cases it was used to allow machines
Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury:
On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not
the root cause of the problem.
The problems were caused by people saying that seperate /usr was a good
idea, so / would
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury:
On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not
the root cause of the problem.
The problems were caused by people saying that seperate /usr
El 29/09/13 18:03, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió:
Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury:
On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not
the root cause of the problem.
The problems were caused by people saying
On 2013-09-29 11:12 AM, Greg Woodbury redwo...@gmail.com wrote:
It is truly layable at the feet of the GNOME folks, the breakage of the
root and usr filesystem separability is all derived from the GNOME camp.
Thanks for the excellent summary... and this explains a lot...
It also doesn't
On 29/09/2013 18:33, Dale wrote:
that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news.
And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are
not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes.
If not, then what was it? You seem to know what it was
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 29/09/2013 18:33, Dale wrote:
that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news.
And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are
not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes.
If not, then what was it? You seem
On 29/09/2013 23:41, Dale wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 29/09/2013 18:33, Dale wrote:
that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news.
And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are
not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes.
If
Am 29.09.2013 18:41, schrieb Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike):
El 29/09/13 18:03, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió:
Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury:
On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not
19 matches
Mail list logo
