On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 06:55:18PM -0700, Gordon Haverland wrote:
> I'm a UN*X dinosaur. I started using UN*X in 1984.
>
> I don't like this idea of folding /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin into
> /usr/bin.
>
> I think the reasons to segregate /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin
> and anything in /usr/loca
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 18:55 -0700, Gordon Haverland wrote:
> I'm a UN*X dinosaur. I started using UN*X in 1984.
>
> I don't like this idea of folding /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin into
> /usr/bin.
>
> I think the reasons to segregate /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin
> and anything in /usr/local/* sti
I'm a UN*X dinosaur. I started using UN*X in 1984.
I don't like this idea of folding /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin into
/usr/bin.
I think the reasons to segregate /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin
and anything in /usr/local/* still exist today.
I want more segregation, not less. Actually, I've wante
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:11:55 +0100
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Mo, Dez 12, 2011 at 05:36:41 (CET), Karl Goetz wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> The initramfs on the other hand is made to fit. So if /usr isn't
> >> on a networking filesystem (NFS) then you won't get networking
> >> stuff in the initramfs
Reinhard Tartler writes:
> On Mo, Dez 12, 2011 at 05:36:41 (CET), Karl Goetz wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> The initramfs on the other hand is made to fit. So if /usr isn't on a
>>> networking filesystem (NFS) then you won't get networking stuff in the
>>> initramfs. No raid then mdadm isn't included. No
On Mo, Dez 12, 2011 at 05:36:41 (CET), Karl Goetz wrote:
[...]
>> The initramfs on the other hand is made to fit. So if /usr isn't on a
>> networking filesystem (NFS) then you won't get networking stuff in the
>> initramfs. No raid then mdadm isn't included. No lvm and the initramfs
>> gets small
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 10:40:36 +0100
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Igor Pashev writes:
>
> > 07.12.2011 04:43, Marco d'Itri пишет:
> >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=12a362be5c1982f80dbfb75bda070208a2c99cdf
> >>
> >> Discuss.
> >>
> > I don't see any reason
Darren Salt writes:
> I demand that Stephan Seitz may or may not have written...
>
>> On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 11:34:34AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>> Actually, Red Hat's goal *is* to support a separate /usr, they just want
>>> to have the initramfs mount it.
>
>> But as was seen in the last dis
I demand that Stephan Seitz may or may not have written...
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 11:34:34AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> Actually, Red Hat's goal *is* to support a separate /usr, they just want
>> to have the initramfs mount it.
> But as was seen in the last discussion, not everyone *has* an
+++ Sune Vuorela [2011-12-07 13:05 +]:
>
> Recovering involved
> - a base64 decoder written in shell
> - a statically linked busybox
uuencoded and pasted into the console
> - overwriting /bin/ln
> - /bin/ln /bin/ln /bin/busybox
We all had hardcore geeking fun that afternoon :-)
Wookey
-
On Dec 08, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I am not really looking forward to keep reverting these changes in my
> > package, and since Red Hat controls most Linux infrastructure now other
> > packages will face the same problem.
> I might be missing something but given the link your posted, and looking
On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 11:34:34 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I am not really looking forward to keep reverting these changes in my
> package, and since Red Hat controls most Linux infrastructure now other
> packages will face the same problem.
I might be missing something but given the link your po
Igor Pashev writes:
> Goswin, thanks for the explanation.
> Now I'm inclined to move all to /usr :-)
We live to serve. :)
I'm kind of undecided. I know eventualy this will just work and have
eliminate all those "Hey, I have a strange setup and xyz needs to be in
/ for this" bugs. But I also am
Stephan Seitz writes:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:25:07AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>I guess mounting /usr is no more complicated than mounting / in
>>initramfs. Finding out what modules and software is needed for that
>>should be the same code as for /.
>
> That depends. I have some s
08.12.2011 13:40, Goswin von Brederlow пишет:
Igor Pashev writes:
07.12.2011 04:43, Marco d'Itri пишет:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=12a362be5c1982f80dbfb75bda070208a2c99cdf
Discuss.
I don't see any reason to move all into /usr from /,
and make initr
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 at 11:06:46 +0100, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> That depends. I have some systems where all file systems except
> /boot are encrypted. Since I don’t use Debian kernels and initramfs,
> I created a small one myself to ask for the /-partition password.
> Now I would have to put the whol
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:25:07AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I guess mounting /usr is no more complicated than mounting / in
initramfs. Finding out what modules and software is needed for that
should be the same code as for /.
That depends. I have some systems where all file systems ex
Igor Pashev writes:
> 07.12.2011 04:43, Marco d'Itri пиÑеÑ:
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=12a362be5c1982f80dbfb75bda070208a2c99cdf
>>
>> Discuss.
>>
>
> I don't see any reason to move all into /usr from /,
> and make initrd for minimal system:
>
> Making
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Dec 07, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> Give everyone at least 10 years headstart to migrate existing systems
>> away from having a seperate /usr partition and for people to stop making
>> a seperate /usr on new installs.
> Actually, Red Hat's goal *is*
Philip Hands writes:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:00:35 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 at 01:43:34 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=12a362be5c1982f80dbfb75bda070208a2c99cdf
>> >
>> > Discuss.
>>
>> As far as I can ma
On 12687 March 1977, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=12a362be5c1982f80dbfb75bda070208a2c99cdf
> Discuss.
Nice link, though using https would be oh-so-much-more-secure.
[BLA]
Maybe you should actually deliver some content to discuss and not expe
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 01:44:28PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 07, Stephan Seitz wrote:
Yes, but by the admin, not by Debian, and the admin may not be
interested in adding a new layer of possible failures, because it
works.
And other admins may be interested in the important features whi
On 2011-12-07, Philip Hands wrote:
> Personally, I think that resorting to rescue media is something of an
> admission of defeat, but I'm probably a bit odd ;-)
I recent followed a recovery in a irc channel after installing a
wrong-architecture libc on a system. Only access was 2 existing root
co
On 12/07/2011 07:03 PM, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> Personally, I think that resorting to rescue media is something of an
> admission of defeat, but I'm probably a bit odd ;-)
>
You're not Phil, I agree with the above statement!
Thomas (zigo)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@list
On Dec 07, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> Yes, but by the admin, not by Debian, and the admin may not be
> interested in adding a new layer of possible failures, because it
> works.
And other admins may be interested in the important features which
everything-in-usr supports. Who is going to win?
> Well
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 01:11:56PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 07, Stephan Seitz wrote:
But as was seen in the last discussion, not everyone *has* an
initramfs, because it is not needed in many cases or sometimes even
not supported on the platform.
And as was seen, most of these setups c
On Dec 07, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> But as was seen in the last discussion, not everyone *has* an
> initramfs, because it is not needed in many cases or sometimes even
> not supported on the platform.
And as was seen, most of these setups can be modified to support this
scheme.
I also have a few id
07.12.2011 04:43, Marco d'Itri пишет:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=12a362be5c1982f80dbfb75bda070208a2c99cdf
>
> Discuss.
>
I don't see any reason to move all into /usr from /,
and make initrd for minimal system:
Making self-contained initrd is the same proble
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:00:35 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 at 01:43:34 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=12a362be5c1982f80dbfb75bda070208a2c99cdf
> >
> > Discuss.
>
> As far as I can make out, their position is that
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 11:34:34AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Actually, Red Hat's goal *is* to support a separate /usr, they just want
to have the initramfs mount it.
But as was seen in the last discussion, not everyone *has* an initramfs,
because it is not needed in many cases or sometimes ev
On Dec 07, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Give everyone at least 10 years headstart to migrate existing systems
> away from having a seperate /usr partition and for people to stop making
> a seperate /usr on new installs.
Actually, Red Hat's goal *is* to support a separate /usr, they just want
to
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=12a362be5c1982f80dbfb75bda070208a2c99cdf
>
> Discuss.
>
> --
> ciao,
> Marco
Give everyone at least 10 years headstart to migrate existing systems
away from having a seperate /usr partition and
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 at 01:43:34 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=12a362be5c1982f80dbfb75bda070208a2c99cdf
>
> Discuss.
As far as I can make out, their position is that a separate /usr is now only
supported if you mount it from the initrd
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=12a362be5c1982f80dbfb75bda070208a2c99cdf
Discuss.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
34 matches
Mail list logo
