On 03/01/16 07:00, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 02, Geert Stappers <stapp...@stappers.nl> wrote: > >> A design with "whole OS on /usr" breaks the good pratice of having >> tools like /bin/mount and /sbin/ifconfig available when /usr is unavailable. > This is not a good practice but just an historical accident: for details > see http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html . > grml-rescueboot is way more useful for rescue purposes.
Perhaps you should read the rest of that thread.. > >> In other words: I don't yet see a _good_ reason for "TheUsrMerge". > Many have been discussed. And none of them stand up to scrutiny imho. Just because Lennart Poettering and Kay Seivers say so is not a valid reason. Neither does publishing an opinion piece on freedesktop.org FWIW. Because Solaris has done it is no reason to do so either Because systemd doesn't work without /usr on the root partition isn't a good reason either. That just means systemd is broken by design and needs to be fixed. Just because the separation occured way back in time, doesn't mean that it isn't still useful or beneficial for some or indeed many use cases. What I'd like to know is what are the real use cases where a merged /usr is absolutely required (- where it isn't the result of a lazy and unprofessional attitude of dis-respecting the environment that exists and ignorance of the hard learned lessons of long ago.)? -- Daniel Reurich Centurion Computer Technology (2005) Ltd. 021 797 722
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
