On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 06:25:07AM +1000, Kel Modderman wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 May 2009 03:39:40 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:36:02PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
> > > prominent developers of other
On Wednesday 06 May 2009 03:39:40 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:36:02PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
> > prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
> > /usr is too much work an
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
> prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
> /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
> (not Ubuntu, not Fedora, not SuSE).
BTW, last month Len
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 07:12:59AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> There is absolutely no reason why you can not mount a filesystem over
> /root later in the boot process. I agree that /root should/must exist
> at all time so one can login when for example fsck fails.
No, you must be able to
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> Sure. I can hack things so that I have a writable home directory
> for root while having a read only /. But then it is incorrect to state
> that it "works out of the box".
>
> manoj
If you have a read-only / you need to have /var and /home as seperate
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
> Gabor Gombas wrote:
>> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 03:53:23PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>>
>>> No, /root cannot be a separate filesystem.
>>> /root is part of very basic system, and it is required for super user
>>> when he/she is restoring the systems or doi
On Thu, May 14 2009, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:38:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> it is the principle of the thing. /root is the home directory
>> for the root user. Home directories are mutable, programs may store
>> configuration files there, as may th
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 02:27:52PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> There might also software very early in the boot process that need a
> writable root-$HOME.
Nonsense. Any such software needs to be beaten severely.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Deb
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 04:21:53PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
I totally agree that / (thus /root) could be read-only.
I pointed out to you that /root is required to be in the same filesystem as /
(FHS) and I gave
you the rationale.
What's the FHS says is a little
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 04:21:53PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> I totally agree that / (thus /root) could be read-only.
>
> I pointed out to you that /root is required to be in the same
> filesystem as / (FHS) and I gave you the rationale.
What's the FHS says is a little different:
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 03:53:23PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
No, /root cannot be a separate filesystem.
/root is part of very basic system, and it is required for super user
when he/she is restoring the systems or doing some kind of administration
(e.g. moving files
Roger Leigh wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 03:53:23PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:38:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
it is the principle of the thing. /root is the home directory
for the root user. Home directories are mutab
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 03:53:23PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> No, /root cannot be a separate filesystem.
> /root is part of very basic system, and it is required for super user
> when he/she is restoring the systems or doing some kind of administration
> (e.g. moving filesystems, etc.).
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 03:53:23PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Gabor Gombas wrote:
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:38:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>>> it is the principle of the thing. /root is the home directory
>>> for the root user. Home directories are mutable, progr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Am Do den 14. Mai 2009 um 14:01 schrieb Gabor Gombas:
> I fail to see how root is different to any other random user in this
> regard. If you want / to be read-only, then you should ensure that /home
> points to something writable. The same thing hol
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:38:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
it is the principle of the thing. /root is the home directory
for the root user. Home directories are mutable, programs may store
configuration files there, as may the user, by themselves. The root
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:38:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> it is the principle of the thing. /root is the home directory
> for the root user. Home directories are mutable, programs may store
> configuration files there, as may the user, by themselves. The root
> user should n
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> On Tue, May 12 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>
>>> I don't know if there are more blocker. Oh, and /root is a home
>>> directory; unless we move that, a read only / would affect root
>>> negatively.
>>
>> How so? Only thing I can think of is the bash history.
On Tue, May 12 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> I don't know if there are more blocker. Oh, and /root is a home
>> directory; unless we move that, a read only / would affect root
>> negatively.
>
> How so? Only thing I can think of is the bash history. But it is not
> like we force a read
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> On Mon, May 11 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> A separate /usr *is* the way to go if you don't want any writes in
> that filesystem 99.9% of the time (i.e. wh
Roger Leigh writes:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:59:36AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > A read-only / should work out of the box just like a read-only /usr. I
>> > haven't installed a fresh one in a long while though so if you kn
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 04:38:59PM +0100, Roger Leigh
wrote:
> There's a patch for /etc/mtab elimination; it's totally unneeded nowadays.
More than unneeded, it is absolutely irrelevant when using mount namespaces.
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:20:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, May 11 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
> >
> >> On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >>> > A separate /usr *is* the way to go if you don't want any writes in
> >>>
On Mon, May 11 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
>
>> On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> > A separate /usr *is* the way to go if you don't want any writes in
>>> > that filesystem 99.9% of the time (i.e. when you're not doing an
>>> > upgrad
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:59:36AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > A read-only / should work out of the box just like a read-only /usr. I
> > haven't installed a fresh one in a long while though so if you know of
> > problems speak up
On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> A read-only / should work out of the box just like a read-only /usr. I
> haven't installed a fresh one in a long while though so if you know of
> problems speak up so bugs can be filed and packages can be fixed.
Last time I tried it, /etc was a pr
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
> On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > A separate /usr *is* the way to go if you don't want any writes in
>> > that filesystem 99.9% of the time (i.e. when you're not doing an
>> > upgrade).
>>
>> A read-only / does the trick just as well. And
On Mon, 11 May 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > A separate /usr *is* the way to go if you don't want any writes in
> > that filesystem 99.9% of the time (i.e. when you're not doing an
> > upgrade).
>
> A read-only / does the trick just as well. And if you don't want
> writes to /usr you proba
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:32:40AM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 May 2009 17:36:02 +0200
> > m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> >
> > > I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and
> > > by prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a
> > >
> On Tue, 5 May 2009 17:36:02 +0200
> m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>
> > I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and
> > by prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a
> > standalone /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth
> > mentionin
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
> On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote:
>> > No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which
>> > is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is required for this.
>>
>> Uhm, no?
>>
>> mount --bind /usr /usr
>
> First, you'd ne
On Tue, 5 May 2009 17:36:02 +0200
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
> prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a
> standalone /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth
> mentioning does it (not
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 08:51:33AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which
> > > is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is required for this.
> >
> > Uhm, no?
> >
>
On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote:
> > No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which
> > is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is required for this.
>
> Uhm, no?
>
> mount --bind /usr /usr
First, you'd need a RO bind mount (yes, it exists, but your comm
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:10:54AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> > So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone
>> > /usr?
>> There had been lots of responses to that.
>
> Yes, the most repeated argument has been mount /usr via NFS.
> Unfort
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 23:38 +0200, Frank Lin PIAT a écrit :
>> Interesting. I thought 386 wasn't supported anymore (?)
>
> AFAIK the kernel is able to emulate a 486 when running on a 386.
Afaik only when properly patched to do so and including glibc patches.
MfG
Giacomo Catenazzi writes:
> Roger Leigh wrote:
>> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:41:06PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>>> Marco d'Itri a écrit :
I know that Debian supports this, but I also know that maintaning
forever large changes to packages for no real gain sucks.
A partial list o
Roger Leigh writes:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 06:49:47PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 17:24 +0100, Roger Leigh a écrit :
>> > That might have been a "traditional" reason for a shared /usr.
>> > However, the package manager can't cope with this setup since
>> > you ha
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
> prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
> /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
> (not Ubuntu, not Fedora, not SuSE).
>
On 08 May 14:35, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 07:27:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which
> > > is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is require
On Fri, 08 May 2009, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> wea...@intrepid:~/tmp$ mkdir foo
> wea...@intrepid:~/tmp$ touch foo/bar
> wea...@intrepid:~/tmp$ sudo mount -o bind,ro foo foo
> wea...@intrepid:~/tmp$ touch foo/baz
> wea...@intrepid:~/tmp$
>
> bind mounts don't do ro.
I have been told, that starti
On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 07:27:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which
> > is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is required for this.
>
> Uhm, no?
>
> mount --bind /usr /
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 07:27:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, May 07 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Manoj Srivastava writes:
> >
> >> On Thu, May 07 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >>
> >> > Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> >> >> Those who want a read-only
Ben Finney wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> On Thu, May 07 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>
>>> Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
Those who want a read-only ‘/usr’ don't seriously try to leave it
read-only while installing or upgrading packages, do they?
>>
On Thu, May 07 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> On Thu, May 07 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>
>> > Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
>> >> Those who want a read-only ‘/usr’ don't seriously try to leave it
>> >> read-only while installing or upgradi
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> On Thu, May 07 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> >> Those who want a read-only ‘/usr’ don't seriously try to leave it
> >> read-only while installing or upgrading packages, do they?
>
> ,[ Excerpt from /
On Thu, May 07 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
>> Those who want a read-only ‘/usr’ don't seriously try to leave it
>> read-only while installing or upgrading packages, do they?
,[ Excerpt from /etc/apt/apt.conf ]
| DPkg
| {
|// Au
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
Yes, the most repeated argument has been mount /usr via NFS.
Unfortunately, nobody yet explained how do they update the resulting
cluster of machines.
It's not particularly difficult. You update the system master and push
t
On Thu, 07 May 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> Those who want a read-only ???/usr??? don't seriously try to leave it
> read-only while installing or upgrading packages, do they?
No. And we hook apt to automatically remount stuff rw before it, and try to
remount ro after. It is easy, it works *perfectl
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 09:37 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi a écrit :
> Stephen Gran wrote:
> >> But with RPM this works!
> > If that is the case, that's about the only thing that works with RPM.
> Or I missed what RPM do with read-only partitions?
Next time I’ll add the tags.
There has been a disc
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Josselin Mouette said:
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
Those who want a read-only ‘/usr’ don't seriously try to leave it
read-only while installing or upgrading packages, do they?
But with RPM this works!
If that is th
This one time, at band camp, Josselin Mouette said:
> Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > Those who want a read-only ‘/usr’ don't seriously try to leave it
> > read-only while installing or upgrading packages, do they?
>
> But with RPM this works!
If that is the case, tha
Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 11:02 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Those who want a read-only ‘/usr’ don't seriously try to leave it
> read-only while installing or upgrading packages, do they?
But with RPM this works!
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in h
>> So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone
>> /usr?
> There had been lots of responses to that.
> You havent presented any supporting your request, so why do you
> want it? Please provide a detailed real-world case. A partial list of
> invalid reasons is: - "Some up
Peter Samuelson writes:
> Also, this procedure would be much more reliable if we said, in
> Policy, that maintainer scripts are not allowed to fail if /usr is not
> writable. (mount -o ro, SELinux, chattr +i, NFS root_squash,
> whatever.)
>
> Would you support that policy? I suspect ldconfig wou
On Thu May 07 00:38, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > What about the (many) arguments made here about the *other* reasons to
> > have /usr a separate filesystem?
>
> I've nothing against them, I was countering only this precise
> argument. FWIW, I haven't seen that many, though the one about
> read-
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 09:36:56PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
> > - We decide that if you want to mount /usr remotely you are on your
> > own.
> >
> > If we do so, we should stop using "mount /usr remotely" as an
> > argument for keeping /usr as a single filesystem.
> What about the (many) arg
Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 23:38 +0200, Frank Lin PIAT a écrit :
> Interesting. I thought 386 wasn't supported anymore (?)
AFAIK the kernel is able to emulate a 486 when running on a 386.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
`- fu
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2009-05-06, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think it's pretty unlikely that *most* Debian machines are done
>> that way. There are a lot better tools for keeping large numbers of
>> systems in sync these days than simple cloning from golden images,
>> and a lot of drawbacks t
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:56:20PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> In particular, from the replies to my question the picture I get is
> that everybody is using ad hoc solutions to implement what some people
> are pretending to be properly supported by Debian. I found it not
> defendable, maybe
Le 6 mai 09 à 00:30, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:10:54AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a
standalone
/usr?
There had been lots of responses to that.
Yes, the most repeated argument has been mount /usr via N
On Tue, 05 May 2009, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I know that Debian supports this, but I also know that maintaning
> forever large changes to packages for no real gain sucks.
I wonder what these are, and I hope you will start a separate thread with
that information.
> So, does anybody still see reasons
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 08:57 -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
> Also, this procedure would be much more reliable if we said, in Policy,
> that maintainer scripts are not allowed to fail if /usr is not writable.
> (mount -o ro, SELinux, chattr +i, NFS root_squash, whatever.)
>
> Would you suppor
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:31:23PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Anyhow, *you* don't understand the problem and you are probably the
> only one thinking I'm selling vapor. From other people's replies I
> conclude that the problem is quite clear and my vapor was so concrete
> that others hinte
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:06:34PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
But system administration is per definition ad hoc solution.
This is our power. Why we give sources? Also to allow us
to tweak debian.
This is a utterly poor argument.
I can easily twist it against
[Stefano Zacchiroli]
> The trick of fiddling the dpkg database on the client machine and
> then run "dpkg --configure -a" there is indeed nice. But again,
> requesting our users to do that, potentially messing up with the
> dpkg database, is IMO not something we can call being properly
>
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
A few side notes:
* everybody overlooked the subtle theoretical problem that our
maintainer scripts can potentially do *everything* on the file
system and *everywhere*, and that they are written in a Turing
complete language (shell script). This means that you can
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:06:34PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> But system administration is per definition ad hoc solution.
> This is our power. Why we give sources? Also to allow us
> to tweak debian.
This is a utterly poor argument.
I can easily twist it against you by saying "why we gi
On Wed, 06 May 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Of the two one:
>
> - We decide that mounting /usr remotely is a Debian goal.
>
> If we do so, the mechanisms to make it work should not be as ad hoc
> as this thread as hinted. We should provide a package explicitly
> made to make this work
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 09:38:39AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Simple.
Sure, that's precisely what I'd call being properly supported in
Debian.
In particular, from the replies to my question the picture I get is
that everybody is using ad hoc solutions to implement
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 09:38:39AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Simple.
Sure, that's precisely what I'd call being properly supported in
Debian.
In particular, from the replies to my question the picture I get is
that everybody is using ad hoc solutions to implement what some people
are pretend
On May 05, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This is false for Ubuntu. Not only is it supported, but significant effort
> was put into *fixing* a /usr-as-separate-mount bug in Ubuntu 9.04 as
> pertains to wpasupplicant.
You may want to discuss this with Keybuk then, because he still
disagrees.
--
ciao,
Em Qua, 2009-05-06 às 00:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli escreveu:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:10:54AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone
> > > /usr?
> > There had been lots of responses to that.
> Yes, the most repeated argument h
On 2009-05-06, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Giacomo Catenazzi writes:
>> - On large parallel systems, people use something more than a base debian
>> console installation.
>> Usually on net you have a complete copy for root, var etc
>> (in case of compromised computers. Very handy instead of reins
Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 23:15 -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> I think it's pretty unlikely that *most* Debian machines are done that
> way. There are a lot better tools for keeping large numbers of systems
> in sync these days than simple cloning from golden images, and a lot of
> drawbacks to the
Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 16:25 -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> It's not particularly difficult. You update the system master and push
> that update into NFS, synchronizing any non-/usr data as you need to
> across all the systems mounting that NFS partition.
Sure, but what is the point of doing tha
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:30:14AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Of course the problem is that if you update on the NFS server, then
> related /etc and /var files [1] will not get updated on the NFS client
> machines and you need to propagate changes there.
One thing to remember is when you
Frank Lin PIAT writes:
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 16:25 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> It's not particularly difficult. You update the system master and
>> push that update into NFS, synchronizing any non-/usr data as you
>> need to across all the systems mounting that NFS partition.
> I have alway
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 16:25 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
>
> > Yes, the most repeated argument has been mount /usr via NFS.
> > Unfortunately, nobody yet explained how do they update the resulting
> > cluster of machines.
>
> It's not particularly difficult. You updat
> Well, some people argued for that. Like you, I'm wondering how one
> actually does this in practice! However there are some rather more
> reasonable uses which have been mentioned:
>
> - read-only /usr (for security)
> - backups
> - recovery (ability to mount root only; important if there's fs
Giacomo Catenazzi writes:
> - On large parallel systems, people use something more than a base debian
> console installation.
> Usually on net you have a complete copy for root, var etc
> (in case of compromised computers. Very handy instead of reinstalling the
> system)
> So it is easi
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:10:54AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>> So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone
>>> /usr?
>> There had been lots of responses to that.
>
> Yes, the most repeated argument has been mount /usr via NFS.
> Unfortunat
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> Yes, the most repeated argument has been mount /usr via NFS.
> Unfortunately, nobody yet explained how do they update the resulting
> cluster of machines.
It's not particularly difficult. You update the system master and push
that update into NFS, synchronizing any
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:30:14AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:10:54AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone
> > > /usr?
> > There had been lots of responses to that.
>
> Yes, the most repeated arg
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:10:54AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone
> > /usr?
> There had been lots of responses to that.
Yes, the most repeated argument has been mount /usr via NFS.
Unfortunately, nobody yet explained how do th
On 11741 March 1977, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone
> /usr?
There had been lots of responses to that.
You havent presented any supporting your request, so why do you
want it? Please provide a detailed real-world case. A partial list o
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 17:41 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
> > prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
> > /usr is too much work and no
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:36:02PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone
> /usr?
> If you do, please provide a detailed real-world use case.
> A partial list of invalid reasons is:
> - "it's really useful on my 386 SX with a 40 MB hard
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 06:50:47PM +0200, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:41:06PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> >> Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> >>> I know that Debian supports this, but I also know that maintaning
> >>> forever large changes to packages fo
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 06:49:47PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 05 mai 2009 à 17:24 +0100, Roger Leigh a écrit :
> > That might have been a "traditional" reason for a shared /usr.
> > However, the package manager can't cope with this setup since
> > you have some components of a packag
On Tue May 05 20:07, Iustin Pop wrote:
> Scenarion A, desktop
> - / on non-LVM, fixed size, as recovery from a broken LVM setup is way
> harder if / is on LVM
> - /usr on LVM, as it can grow significantly, and having it on LVM is
> much more flexible
This is what I do on all of my
Hi,
On Dienstag, 5. Mai 2009, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
> prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
> /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
> (not Ubuntu, not Fedora,
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 09:11:05PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On May 05, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> >> - NFS
> > This is not detailed.
> >> - for my wifi box (ie a 386 SX with 8MB of flash)
> > This is not real world.
> It is.
Not with Debian it isn't. Debian hasn't
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 05, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>
>> - NFS
> This is not detailed.
>
>> - for my wifi box (ie a 386 SX with 8MB of flash)
> This is not real world.
It is. But as it seems you're living on a different world, so better don't start
touching the real world where the rest o
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:36:02PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
> prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
> /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
> (not Ubuntu,
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:36:02PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
> prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
> /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
> (not Ubuntu,
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by
> prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone
> /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it
> (not Ubuntu, not Fedora, not SuSE).
Do you mean that:
On Tue, May 05 2009, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 05, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>
>> Could you elaborate on the kind of "large changes" there are in Debian
>> to support this?
> I'd rather not change subject.
This is not a change of subject. You are starting a haevy duty
thread about chang
On 05/05/09 at 17:58 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On May 05, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> >
> >> - NFS
> > This is not detailed.
>
> /usr NFS shared. Scientific grid use this stuff and it is real world.
> But may be it is too big for deb
Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:41:06PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>> Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>>> I know that Debian supports this, but I also know that maintaning
>>> forever large changes to packages for no real gain sucks.
>>> A partial list of invalid reasons is: [...]
>> How
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
