>>>>> Marco d'Itri <m...@linux.it> writes:
>>>>> On Oct 11, Ivan Shmakov <i...@gray.siamics.net> wrote:
>> Saving a dozen of bytes in ${PATH} doesn't seem like an
>> astonishing idea, anyway. What's the point, then?
> It is explained in the Red Hat wiki page. Try reading it again.
Indeed, I've just read it. To summarize: our / and /usr/ became
quite tangled over the years, so let's use initramfs instead of
/, and / instead of /usr.
Honestly, I believe that Debian hasn't messed up that that
badly. (In particular, I still think that it's possible to boot
without /usr being available.) However, should initramfs really
be considered “Debian's brand new /”, I demand that both
e2fsck(8) and bash(1) be included into one by default, so that
one would still be able to boot and repair a damaged /usr/^W /
from there.
To me, going this way means that initramfs becomes subject to
unconstrained growth. Somehow, I deem it less acceptable for
initramfs than for /.
--
FSF associate member #7257
--
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/864nzf32hn....@gray.siamics.net
