On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 10:10:20 +0100
Didier Kryn wrote:
But
> the part of the OS (which is managed by dpkg) better stays on one
> single partition.
IME, absolutely nothing in real life works that way.
Do you dump all your clothes into one big bin or store them by say
type?
Do you store all your
On 22/11/18 at 10:10, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 21/11/2018 à 17:11, Alessandro Selli a écrit :
>>> 1) A separate /usr serves no practical purpose on a Debian/Devuan
>>> system
>> Yes it does, and they were already listed:
>>
>>
>> 1) mounting /usr with different mount options (like barrier, ro,
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
> /home should
> definitely be separated and well protected (RAID where possible,
> backups), /usr/local (or /local) may as well, /opt also,since Debian
> does not use it.
Here's my idea for how best to deal with the problem of /opt:
:r! ls -l /opt
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
> Rick, I'm very impressed by the level of responsibility which
> has been given to you. We certainly don't have the same mileage. You
> are a professional while I am just a somehow educated amateur.
Well, when I _started_ doing that, I was a staff accountant
Le 22/11/2018 à 10:27, Rick Moen a écrit :
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
Just out of curiosity:
Debian kernels are patched by Debian's kernel team, in
particular for security fixes. Therefore I see 4 options (at least)
1) compile from kernel.org source with your own
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
> Just out of curiosity:
>
> Debian kernels are patched by Debian's kernel team, in
> particular for security fixes. Therefore I see 4 options (at least)
>
> 1) compile from kernel.org source with your own config
>
> 2) compile from
Le 21/11/2018 à 17:34, k...@aspodata.se a écrit :
To boot with an uefi system you need a fat partition available before
even the bootloader is loaded, so what is the reason that you cannot
use that instead of an initrd ?
I agree, anything done in an initrd or initramfs can be done in a
Le 21/11/2018 à 17:11, Alessandro Selli a écrit :
1) A separate /usr serves no practical purpose on a Debian/Devuan system
Yes it does, and they were already listed:
1) mounting /usr with different mount options (like barrier, ro, nodev etc);
chown -R a-w /bin
chown -R a-w /sbin
chown
Le 20/11/2018 à 20:04, Rick Moen a écrit :
Since the gentleman seemed not to be familiar with make-kpkg in package
kernel-package, perhaps he should start there. (However, I believe it's
now deprecated as of Debian stretch, and being replaced by newer
automation tool deb-pkg, and coverage in
Le 20/11/2018 à 11:32, Rick Moen a écrit :
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
Well, AFAIU, you compile your own kernel, with device drivers
in the kernel, instead of modules (not possible for all), and don't
use the packaged kernel/initrd provided by Debian.
That's not _precisely_ what I
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:16:04AM +1300, Daniel Reurich wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Maintaining the option of choosing between the two is what Devuan is
> > trying to do, knowing that it might become harder to support it as
> > time passes. My guess is that there is no real reason for the basic
> >
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 04:12:23AM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 21/11/18 at 20:56, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:24:24PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> >> On 21/11/18 at 16:59, KatolaZ wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 07:32:22AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
>
On 21/11/18 at 20:56, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:24:24PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> On 21/11/18 at 16:59, KatolaZ wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 07:32:22AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net):
> I've been following the
On 22/11/18 at 00:46, Svante Signell wrote:
> A historical note: The GNU/Hurd people tried to do the merge the other (and
> right) way around:
Why are we to take for granted that that way is the right way and that
it does make sense for present-day rollouts?
[...]
> Let's bring som history
On 22/11/18 at 02:16, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 21.11.18 17:11, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> On 21/11/18 at 13:17, Roger Leigh wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> I've been following the discussion with interest.
>>
>> No, you definitely have not followed it. In fact you are disregarding
>> all the
On 21/11/18 at 23:16, Daniel Reurich wrote:
[...]
> To be honest I don't even think the option should be presented at
> install time - certainly not in the way it's currently being presented
> in the installer - adding yet another dialogue.
>
> I suggest we add it as option in the
On 21.11.18 17:11, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 21/11/18 at 13:17, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've been following the discussion with interest.
>
>
> No, you definitely have not followed it. In fact you are disregarding
> all the points that were expressed against the merge.
>
On Wed, 2018-11-21 at 12:17 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been following the discussion with interest. It's certainly not a
> new discussion, since I remember debating it a good few years back, but
> there are still the same opinions and thoughts on the topic that I
>
>
> Maintaining the option of choosing between the two is what Devuan is
> trying to do, knowing that it might become harder to support it as
> time passes. My guess is that there is no real reason for the basic
> system (the stuff needed at boot time before you get to the point
> where other
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:24:24PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 21/11/18 at 16:59, KatolaZ wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 07:32:22AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> >> Quoting Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net):
> >>
> >>> I've been following the discussion with interest.
> >> For values of
On 21/11/18 at 18:49, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> Alessandro:
>> On 21/11/18 at 17:34, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
>>> Alessandro:
On 21/11/18 at 14:35, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> Hendrik:
> ...
>> Wait a moment. Haven't we already done this with /boot? Should we
>> perhaps have
On 21/11/2018 16:24, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>
> So, you agree then that:
I agree from your point of view for your single specific use case.
Generally I totally disagree, I manage a diskless cluster that depends
on NFS mounted /usr.
It doesn't matter to the cluster nodes that the package
Alessandro:
> On 21/11/18 at 17:34, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> > Alessandro:
> >> On 21/11/18 at 14:35, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> >>> Hendrik:
> >>> ...
> Wait a moment. Haven't we already done this with /boot? Should we
> perhaps have /boot/sbin, and so forth?
> >>> /boot is a viable
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:24:24PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 21/11/18 at 16:59, KatolaZ wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 07:32:22AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> >> Quoting Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net):
> >>
> >>> I've been following the discussion with interest.
> >> For values of
Roger Leigh - 21.11.18, 13:17:
> Lastly, regarding the comments about Devuan "disenfranchising" itself
> from Debian to not be "in the back seat". I take the point, but the
> practical reality is that Debian is so huge not even a company with
> many dozens of employees like Canonical could
On 21/11/18 at 17:34, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> Alessandro:
>> On 21/11/18 at 14:35, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
>>> Hendrik:
>>> ...
Wait a moment. Haven't we already done this with /boot? Should we
perhaps have /boot/sbin, and so forth?
>>> /boot is a viable initrd replacement.
>>
>>
Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org):
> you could have noticed that in essence Roger pointed to the merged-usr
> solution as not only impractical, but also risky and of doubtful
> usefulness.
Noted without comment:
Modern disk sizes make partitioning a separate /usr
unnecessary and
Alessandro:
> On 21/11/18 at 14:35, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> > Hendrik:
> > ...
> >> Wait a moment. Haven't we already done this with /boot? Should we
> >> perhaps have /boot/sbin, and so forth?
> > /boot is a viable initrd replacement.
>
>
> No, it is not. An initramfs is needed to
On 21/11/18 at 16:59, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 07:32:22AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
>> Quoting Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net):
>>
>>> I've been following the discussion with interest.
>> For values of 'following' that equates to noting that the matter has
>> been discussed, but
On 21/11/18 at 13:17, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been following the discussion with interest.
No, you definitely have not followed it. In fact you are disregarding
all the points that were expressed against the merge.
> It's certainly not a new discussion, since I remember
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 07:32:22AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net):
>
> > I've been following the discussion with interest.
>
> For values of 'following' that equates to noting that the matter has
> been discussed, but then ignoring its substance.
>
Dear
Quoting Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net):
> I've been following the discussion with interest.
For values of 'following' that equates to noting that the matter has
been discussed, but then ignoring its substance.
OK, great. Have an enjoyable day.
On 21/11/18 at 14:35, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> Hendrik:
> ...
>> Wait a moment. Haven't we already done this with /boot? Should we
>> perhaps have /boot/sbin, and so forth?
> /boot is a viable initrd replacement.
No, it is not. An initramfs is needed to perform actions that must be
done
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:17:21PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been following the discussion with interest. It's certainly not a new
> discussion, since I remember debating it a good few years back, but there
> are still the same opinions and thoughts on the topic that I
Hendrik:
...
> Wait a moment. Haven't we already done this with /boot? Should we
> perhaps have /boot/sbin, and so forth?
/boot is a viable initrd replacement. The downside is that there is
only one /boot, where you can have one initrd per kernel. But that
could be solved by some script.
I
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:17:21PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> 1) A separate /usr serves no practical purpose on a Debian/Devuan system
>
>Historically, /usr was separately mountable, shareable over NFS. With a
> package manager like dpkg, / and /usr are an integrated, managed whole.
>
Roger Leigh:
...
> 1) A separate /usr serves no practical purpose on a Debian/Devuan system
...
Please stop, and please respect the whish of the users who wants a
separate /usr, regardless if they are total idiots or seasoned admins.
If you want a merged /usr, you can have it, but don't push it
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 06:47:09PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 18/11/2018 à 01:21, Miroslav Skoric a écrit :
> > On 11/17/18 3:18 PM, Didier Kryn wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The advantage of separating /usr is it can be mounted after
> > > boot. /bin and /sbin (and /lib)
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 01:29:53AM -0500, James Cloos wrote:
>
> *Everything* currently in /usr should instead be in /.
Things that are essential for system startup, and for system diagnosis
and recovery (in case it doesnt start properly) should be in the root
partition, whatever it is called.
Hi folks,
I've been following the discussion with interest. It's certainly not a
new discussion, since I remember debating it a good few years back, but
there are still the same opinions and thoughts on the topic that I
remember from back then.
Some general points to consider:
1) A
Hi Stephan,
Stephan Seitz writes:
> On Sa, Nov 17, 2018 at 09:14:06 +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>
>>About that not looking all bad, perhaps the merge should be in the other
>>direction, from /usr to / rather than from / to /usr. Or can we expect
>
> No, if you want to merge something,
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 02:13:24 -0800, Rick wrote in message
<20181121101324.gb4...@linuxmafia.com>:
> Quoting Arnt Karlsen (a...@iaksess.no):
>
> > ..yeah, and I really asked about RAID0, the top entry in both:
> > https://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#raid-0 or:
> >
Quoting Arnt Karlsen (a...@iaksess.no):
> ..yeah, and I really asked about RAID0, the top entry in both:
> https://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid#raid-0 or:
> https://www.stellarinfo.co.in/blog/advantages-and-disadvantages-popular-raid-systems/
>
> ..14 year old performance numbers:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 01:12:22 -0800, Rick wrote in message
<20181121091222.ga4...@linuxmafia.com>:
> Quoting Arnt Karlsen (a...@iaksess.no):
>
> > > In any event, I gather that there are tradeoffs.
> > >
Who left the barn door open?
--
Alessandro Selli
VOIP SIP: dhatarat...@ekiga.net
Chiave firma e cifratura PGP/GPG signing and encoding key:
BA651E4050DDFC31E17384BABCE7BD1A1B0DF2AE
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Dng
Quoting Arnt Karlsen (a...@iaksess.no):
> > In any event, I gather that there are tradeoffs.
> > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/15052/what-are-the-advantages-of-swap-on-a-raid-1-mirror-device
> > https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5898
>
> ..hum, looks like you read my question on
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:52:19 -0800, Rick wrote in message
<20181121075219.gz4...@linuxmafia.com>:
> Quoting Arnt Karlsen (a...@iaksess.no):
>
> > ..is/was these 2 separate swap spaces faster stand-alone than put
> > together in a RAID0?
>
> I'm not sure. Adding the additional complication
Quoting Arnt Karlsen (a...@iaksess.no):
> ..is/was these 2 separate swap spaces faster stand-alone than put
> together in a RAID0?
I'm not sure. Adding the additional complication of the md layer to
the Linux swapper thread's management of alternate access between two swap
partitions with equal
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:50:45 -0500, Steve wrote in message
<20181120115045.311c5...@mydesk.domain.cxm>:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 09:36:18 +0100
> KatolaZ wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 01:08:41AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> > > Instead, any package diff from Debian should be
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 11:22:53 -0800, Rick wrote in message
<20181119192253.gk4...@linuxmafia.com>:
> ## sdb and sdc are RAID1 mirrored, except for swap. Each is 18 GB
> SCSI.
> /dev/md0/var/wwwext3nodev,nosuid0
> 2 #sdb5,sdc5
> /dev/md1/var/libext3
For the question of whether merging / and usr is good:
It would be good except that rh pushes doing it backwards and debian
seems to be falling for that insanity, too.
/usr was intended for home directories. Hense usEr.
/usr/bin and /usr/lib were created only because disks were small.
Disks,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:03:37PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 09:40:14 +0100
> KatolaZ wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 04:51:43PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> >
> > [cut]
> >
> > >
> > > ACK. Just like to point out that Devuan might run into packages
> > > that
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:04:42AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
>
> As to the rest, I'm not in the habit of posting to public mailing lists
> detailed information about how often and precisely how I carry out
> security-sensitive maintenance at the very core of my systems. I'm just
> fickle and
Quoting Martin Steigerwald (mar...@lichtvoll.de):
> AFAIK make-kpkg from kernel-package has been deprecated since a long
> time, easily more than year or to already. I just did not care so far.
> It works just the way I like it… so I intend to continue to use it for
> as long as it does. Which
Rick Moen - 21.11.18, 00:02:
> Quoting Harald Arnesen (skog...@gmail.com):
> > Why not just use "make deb-pkg" from the kernel source tree?
>
> I'm a little unclear on whether this is a suggestion, ot a question,
> or both, or a suggestion disguised as a question. ;->
>
> Yesterday when I
Quoting Harald Arnesen (skog...@gmail.com):
> Why not just use "make deb-pkg" from the kernel source tree?
I'm a little unclear on whether this is a suggestion, ot a question, or
both, or a suggestion disguised as a question. ;->
Yesterday when I posted upthread, I had just then learned that
Rick Moen [20/11/2018 20.04]:
> Since the gentleman seemed not to be familiar with make-kpkg in package
> kernel-package, perhaps he should start there. (However, I believe it's
> now deprecated as of Debian stretch, and being replaced by newer
> automation tool deb-pkg, and coverage in The
Rich Moen:
...
> Since the gentleman seemed not to be familiar with make-kpkg in package
> kernel-package, perhaps he should start there. (However, I believe it's
> now deprecated as of Debian stretch, and being replaced by newer
> automation tool deb-pkg, and coverage in The Debian
On 20-11-18 18:38, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 13:09:59 +0100
> info at smallinnovations dot nl wrote:
>
>> On 18-11-18 09:36, KatolaZ wrote:
>>> This is not gonna happen, given for instance the way our presence in
>>> debian-devel has been "cheered up" (with aggressive posts and
>>>
Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com):
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:32:28AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
> >
> > > And what kernel source do you use, kernel.org or Debian?
> >
> > I'm unclear on what possible use you would have for that information.
>
On 2018-11-20 11:38, Steve Litt wrote:
And who can forget the GR, where, at the last minute, when it appeared
that they stacked the deck, by adding a new alternative, when it looked
like the GR would demand Debian work without a systemd PID1?
Repeating here for truth in case anyone has not
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:38:24PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 13:09:59 +0100
> info at smallinnovations dot nl wrote:
>
> > On 18-11-18 09:36, KatolaZ wrote:
> > > This is not gonna happen, given for instance the way our presence in
> > > debian-devel has been "cheered up"
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 14:29:43 -0600
goli...@dyne.org wrote:
> On 2018-11-18 02:32, KatolaZ wrote:
> >
> > Besides the drama: we built yesterday a preliminary version of the
> > debian-installer for beowulf which has an explicit opt-in question
> > for usrmerge:
> >
> >
> >
Martin Steigerwald - 20.11.18, 18:22:
> So in my opinion it is good to cooperate so that Devuan can take as
> much as possible from Debian and focus on the packages that actually
> need to be changed for Debian.
For Devuan of course.
--
Martin
___
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 09:19:31 +0100
KatolaZ wrote:
> It does make a difference since we allow to install from the live,
> using refractainstaller (not d-i). I guess the ISOs themselves will be
> built without a merged usr, and then we will let the user choose if
> they want a merged usr in case
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 13:48:47 +0100
KatolaZ wrote:
> The fact that systemd is the default in Debian and that any attempt to
> discuss the possibility of supporting alternatives is mostly seen as
> "trolling" does not make life any easier though.
And even if they promised to support
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 13:09:59 +0100
info at smallinnovations dot nl wrote:
> On 18-11-18 09:36, KatolaZ wrote:
> > This is not gonna happen, given for instance the way our presence in
> > debian-devel has been "cheered up" (with aggressive posts and
> > personal insults). The truth is that too
Steve Litt - 20.11.18, 18:10:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 10:46:13 +0100
>
> Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > KatolaZ - 18.11.18, 09:36:
[…]
> > Maybe… not just yet.
> >
> > But there certainly is a potential. I am glad about the wonderful
> > cooperation between some Devuan and some Debian developers.
Henrik:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:32:28AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
> >
> > > And what kernel source do you use, kernel.org or Debian?
> >
> > I'm unclear on what possible use you would have for that information.
>
> It might help those wanting to try
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 10:46:13 +0100
Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> KatolaZ - 18.11.18, 09:36:
> > This is not gonna happen, given for instance the way our presence in
> > debian-devel has been "cheered up" (with aggressive posts and
> > personal
>
> The most important aspect here is: "has been".
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 09:40:14 +0100
KatolaZ wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 04:51:43PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> >
> > ACK. Just like to point out that Devuan might run into packages
> > that have already moved programs that really ought to be in /bin
> > or /sbin over to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 09:36:18 +0100
KatolaZ wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 01:08:41AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Instead, any package diff from Debian should be considered a
> > problem to be fixed. Any patches, instead of removing systemd
> > support, should make things work both with
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:32:28AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
>
> > And what kernel source do you use, kernel.org or Debian?
>
> I'm unclear on what possible use you would have for that information.
It might help those wanting to try it themselves.
--
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
> Well, AFAIU, you compile your own kernel, with device drivers
> in the kernel, instead of modules (not possible for all), and don't
> use the packaged kernel/initrd provided by Debian.
That's not _precisely_ what I said, no. (I have nothing against
Le 20/11/2018 à 00:43, k...@aspodata.se a écrit :
Didier:
Le 17/11/2018 à 16:15,k...@aspodata.se a écrit :
Didier:
If you want to boot directly to the disk, then don't use a distro.
I boot directly to disk, why shouldn't I use a distro ?
I see no downside of using a distro, I just
Le 19/11/2018 à 23:57, Rick Moen a écrit :
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
Very nice. Congratulations. Do I understand well if I
understand your scripts read the config of the Debian kernel and
customize it to compile your own kernel?
I must beg your pardon, Didier, but I don't
On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 13:25:19 -0800
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Daniel Reurich::
>
> > I don't want it.
> > My view seems to coincide with Rich Moens.
>
> I'm still curious who these Rich Moens are. Perhaps a clone
> conspiracy as in Orphan Black -- or a franchise like Dread Pirate
>
Didier:
> Le 17/11/2018 à 16:15, k...@aspodata.se a écrit :
> > Didier:
> >> If you want to boot directly to the disk, then don't use a distro.
> > I boot directly to disk, why shouldn't I use a distro ?
> > I see no downside of using a distro, I just choose what parts I want
> > to use.
>
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
> Very nice. Congratulations. Do I understand well if I
> understand your scripts read the config of the Debian kernel and
> customize it to compile your own kernel?
I must beg your pardon, Didier, but I don't fully understand your
question.
In general
Le 19/11/2018 à 19:58, Rick Moen a écrit :
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
Seems we agree. What I mean is that you must carefully tweak
your OS so that the package manager does not undo your settings. It
also means that you cannot use kernel updates from the distro
because you just
On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 13:03:30 +0100
KatolaZ wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 12:57:23PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> > On 16/11/18 at 11:43, KatolaZ wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:19:30AM +, Rowland Penny wrote:
> > >
> > > [cut]
> > >
> > >> So, after reading Steve's
Quoting Miroslav Skoric (sko...@uns.ac.rs):
> Possibly ... but you need to explain that to the 3rd party software
> programmers. All I have remembered to be compiled from sources
> locally, went to /usr/local/.. Seems as (un)written consensus;
> however nobody suggested to have /usr/local/ as a
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
> Seems we agree. What I mean is that you must carefully tweak
> your OS so that the package manager does not undo your settings. It
> also means that you cannot use kernel updates from the distro
> because you just don't use the kernel of the distro. You
Le 18/11/2018 à 01:21, Miroslav Skoric a écrit :
On 11/17/18 3:18 PM, Didier Kryn wrote:
The advantage of separating /usr is it can be mounted after
boot. /bin and /sbin (and /lib) contain the critical applications
(and library) necessary to boot the system, and they are, by
Le 17/11/2018 à 20:51, Rick Moen a écrit :
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
If you want to boot directly to the disk, then don't use a distro.
I very much do not concur.
Since 1992 -- with a gap when I was lazy for a long time -- I've found
it useful to construct bespoke kernels for my
Le 17/11/2018 à 16:15, k...@aspodata.se a écrit :
Didier:
...
If you want to boot directly to the disk, then don't use a distro.
,,,
I boot directly to disk, why shouldn't I use a distro ?
I see no downside of using a distro, I just choose what parts I want
to use.
Would you be
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 01:49:19PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> In my opinion, install CD/DVDs are one case in which the merge makes
> sense, as you inevitably have a single filesystem on the media anyway.
Such a merge on a single filesystem causes no problems, but has no benefits
either.
On 19/11/18 at 13:55, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 01:49:19PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
>>
>> In my opinion, install CD/DVDs are one case in which the merge makes
>> sense, as you inevitably have a single filesystem on the media anyway.
>> This does not prevent
On 19/11/18c at 12:46, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Sa, Nov 17, 2018 at 09:14:06 +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>> The idea of grouping certain classes of files in different directories
>> makes it just so much easier for homo sapiens to keep a grip on things.
>
> Well, I can remember a time when you
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 01:49:19PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
[cut]
>
>
> In my opinion, install CD/DVDs are one case in which the merge makes
> sense, as you inevitably have a single filesystem on the media anyway.
> This does not prevent installing an unmerged filesystem, neither
On 18/11/18 at 21:29, goli...@dyne.org wrote:
> On 2018-11-18 02:32, KatolaZ wrote:
>>
>> Besides the drama: we built yesterday a preliminary version of the
>> debian-installer for beowulf which has an explicit opt-in question for
>> usrmerge:
>>
>>
>>
On Sa, Nov 17, 2018 at 09:14:06 +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
The idea of grouping certain classes of files in different directories
makes it just so much easier for homo sapiens to keep a grip on things.
Well, I can remember a time when you had a /usr/X11 directory. While this
was mostly for
On 11/18/18 2:28 AM, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
2. What about local compilations of various 3rd party software that
usually go to /usr/local/bin, sbin, lib, ... in case of merger will
they all go to the root filesystem? More potential trouble? Yes/No?
Tnx.
..you want these on its own disk, or at
Hi KatolaZ,
KatolaZ writes:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 04:51:43PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
>>
>> ACK. Just like to point out that Devuan might run into packages that
>> have already moved programs that really ought to be in /bin or /sbin
>> over to /usr/bin and /usr/sbin.
>>
>>
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 09:20:58 +0100, KatolaZ wrote in message
<20181119082058.dzvrnwrwy3ji5...@katolaz.homeunix.net>:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 02:11:34AM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 20:52:26 +, Simon wrote in message
> >
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 02:11:34AM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 20:52:26 +, Simon wrote in message
> <3a91e5c4-1603-40b5-b560-3f8bc8945...@thehobsons.co.uk>:
>
> > goli...@dyne.org wrote:
> >
> > > So . . . if the choice to avoid the merge is only available
> > >
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 08:52:26PM +, Simon Hobson wrote:
> goli...@dyne.org wrote:
>
> > So . . . if the choice to avoid the merge is only available with
> > debian-installer what does that mean for the live isos? Will they be
> > configured with or without the merge as default?
>
>
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 02:29:43PM -0600, goli...@dyne.org wrote:
> On 2018-11-18 02:32, KatolaZ wrote:
> >
> > Besides the drama: we built yesterday a preliminary version of the
> > debian-installer for beowulf which has an explicit opt-in question for
> > usrmerge:
> >
> >
> >
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 20:52:26 +, Simon wrote in message
<3a91e5c4-1603-40b5-b560-3f8bc8945...@thehobsons.co.uk>:
> goli...@dyne.org wrote:
>
> > So . . . if the choice to avoid the merge is only available
> > with debian-installer what does that mean for the live isos? Will
> > they be
On 18/11/18 01:24, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 09:14:06PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
>>
>> # Those are a non-serious suggestion and a rethorical question, in case
>> # that didn't come across.
>>
>> So, I'm against a *forced* /usr merge. I hope Debian does the right
101 - 200 of 302 matches
Mail list logo
