On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 20:19:57 +0100
Irrwahn wrote:
> Hendrik Boom wrote on 16.11.18 19:08:
> > (1) Is initramfs so weird that only one or two people in the world
> > can make one?
>
> No.
>
> And even though stock De(bi|vu)an installations by default use an
> initramfs (an intrd, to be
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 19:52:13 +0100
Irrwahn wrote:
> Steve Litt wrote on 16.11.18 18:17:
> > On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:34:05 +0100
> > Irrwahn wrote:
> >
> >> I cast my vote in favor of making merged /usr the default.
> [...]
> >> Split /usr is an abomination that should have been put to rest
On 11/01/2018 10:20 AM, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 01/11/18 at 13:19, m712 wrote:
>> Your best bet is a killfile since he's guaranteed to bomb our inboxes after
>> your message.
(not asking for a reply)
What makes you think that?
I am entitled to share my opinions no matter how unpopular
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 23:45:39 +0100, Harald wrote in message
:
> Hendrik Boom [11/16/18 7:08 PM]:
>
> > (2) What is initramfs good for?
>
> Early loading of CPU microcode update.
..this is the only good reason for it?
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 12:27:50 -0500, Steve wrote in message
<20181116122750.5ab73...@mydesk.domain.cxm>:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 16:04:42 +0100
> Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>
>
> > I do not yet have a firm opinion on this. So for now I just like to
> > share an experience I had with Debian
Quoting Daniel Taylor (ran...@argle.org):
> I thought it was "system"
Could be -- but as, in effect, a synonym for superuser.
, but I don't even know who originated the
> separation.
Thompson and Ritchie, as a kludge to deal with the need to span two disk
packs on their PDP-11, back in
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 21:50:11 +0100, Irrwahn wrote in message
:
> g4sra wrote on 16.11.18 21:19:
> > The concept of which is at fault anyway, if root file system network
> > support no longer required the merge should go the other way in any
> > case, it is /usr/{bin,sbin,lib} that is
Daniel Taylor wrote:
> It's scary how unreliable our systems used to be compared to now.
Were they ? Or did they just have different fragilities ?
Example:
There's the discussion here about having essential tools available without
having all filesystems mounted. Go back to the times under
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:43:21 +0100, KatolaZ wrote in message
<20181116104321.3kpm4g2wlbpjg...@katolaz.homeunix.net>:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:19:30AM +, Rowland Penny wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> >
> > So, after reading Steve's enlightening description, I am with him,
> > the merge is only
On 11/16/18 4:42 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com):
What *I'm* talking about is I want to continue having /sbin separate
from /bin and /usr/bin, because the /sbin varieties holds statically
compiled programs guaranteed to work at the earliest of boots, and in
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 05:11:01 -0500, Steve wrote in message
<20181116051101.4d06f...@mydesk.domain.cxm>:
> I vote against "the merge".
..I too vote against "the merge"!
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Hendrik Boom [11/16/18 7:08 PM]:
> (2) What is initramfs good for?
Early loading of CPU microcode update.
--
Hilsen Harald
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Irrwahn [11/16/18 9:10 PM]:
> On System V Release 4 and later /bin has already been a symlink to
> /usr/bin, and Solaris implemented the /usr merge about a decade ago.
> Effectively, only some Unices and some Linux based distributions are
> the odd ones out in that respect.
And all the BSDs,
Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com):
> What *I'm* talking about is I want to continue having /sbin separate
> from /bin and /usr/bin, because the /sbin varieties holds statically
> compiled programs guaranteed to work at the earliest of boots, and in
> the case of /sbin, guaranteed to
Quoting Irrwahn (irrw...@freenet.de):
[...]
> On System V Release 4 and later /bin has already been a symlink to
> /usr/bin, and Solaris implemented the /usr merge about a decade ago.
> Effectively, only some Unices and some Linux based distributions are
> the odd ones out in that respect.
I
Am Freitag, 16. November 2018 schrieb Hendrik Boom:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 05:11:01AM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> >
> > Well, maybe because initramfs is a PITA many people choose to avoid.
> > When things go wrong, it's the ultimate black box. And I'm very scared
> > that one day
g4sra wrote on 16.11.18 21:19:
> The concept of which is at fault anyway, if root file system network
> support no longer required the merge should go the other way in any
> case, it is /usr/{bin,sbin,lib} that is depreciated.
>
> /usr/bin > /bin
> /usr/sbin > /sbin
> /usr/lib > /lib
>
> with
> Back in the what, 1970's, the Unix guys
> split /usr/sbin, /sbin, /usr/bin, and /bin to accommodate early boot,
> by separating out statically compiled stuff used in the earliest boot.
Close, not restricted to statically linked, but not dependant on
anything not available in /lib (which were
k...@aspodata.se wrote on 16.11.18 20:45:
> Urban:
[...]
>> Most, if not all, contemporary Linux based operating systems should be
>> able to boot just fine without resorting to any kind of initramfs mechanism,
>> provided all the essential bits are located in the root-fs, and the kernel
>> has
Steve Litt wrote on 16.11.18 18:35:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 12:08:34 +0100
> Irrwahn wrote:
>
>
>> And bringing anything related to systemd into the picture just
>> because its proponents also happen to support merged /usr is a red
>> herring.
>
> That's just not true.
Yes it is.
Hendrik Boom wrote:
> (1) Is initramfs so weird that only one or two people in the world can make
> one?
**AT THE MOMENT** no it isn't. AIUI (and I stand to be corrected) it's simply a
CPIO archive that's been (optionally) compressed. So it can be uncompressed,
extracted, modified, and
Urban:
> Hendrik Boom wrote on 16.11.18 19:08:
...
> > (2) What is initramfs good for? Linux used to work just fine without
> > it.
>
> It's only needed if you have to do stuff before running the `real´ init
> process to bring up the system and all services. If, e.g., for some reason
> you
Daniel Reurich:
...
> So... for Devuan, do we want to default to a merged /usr in our coming
> release of Beowulf or are we going to resist another pointless
> rearranging of the deck chairs...
I don't want it.
My view seems to coincide with Rich Moens.
> Keen to get some feedback on this
It is
Hendrik Boom wrote on 16.11.18 19:08:
> (1) Is initramfs so weird that only one or two people in the world can
> make one?
No.
And even though stock De(bi|vu)an installations by default use an
initramfs (an intrd, to be precise): if you ever find yourself in a
position where you have to
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 05:11:01AM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> Well, maybe because initramfs is a PITA many people choose to avoid.
> When things go wrong, it's the ultimate black box. And I'm very scared
> that one day Poettering/Redhat/Freedesktop.org will corner the market
> on initramfs
* On 2018 16 Nov 10:03 -0600, Edward Bartolo wrote:
> A merger is when two or more entities become unified into one entity
> like two companies becoming one single company. So, /usr merging
> should require other directories becoming part of it. Googling brought
> me a question on Ubuntu forums
I am personally against such a change as being default in Devuan. I view it
as a change that makes things less forgiving to newbies and to people who
occasionally make mistakes.
An example of this is about three years ago, when I was new to Linux and
accidentally blew away my /usr/bin directory
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 12:27:50 -0500
Steve Litt wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 16:04:42 +0100
> Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>
>
> > I do not yet have a firm opinion on this. So for now I just like to
> > share an experience I had with Debian without usrmerge:
> >
> > I downloaded a software – I
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 12:08:34 +0100
Irrwahn wrote:
> And bringing anything related to systemd into the picture just
> because its proponents also happen to support merged /usr is a red
> herring.
That's just not true.
We have a half a decade's history of seeing systemd stick its nose in
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 16:04:42 +0100
Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> I do not yet have a firm opinion on this. So for now I just like to
> share an experience I had with Debian without usrmerge:
>
> I downloaded a software – I do not remember that it was – from
> somewhere – I do not remember where
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:43:21 +0100
KatolaZ wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:19:30AM +, Rowland Penny wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> >
> > So, after reading Steve's enlightening description, I am with him,
> > the merge is only needed by systemd and seems to be a way of
> > forcing it on
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:34:05 +0100
Irrwahn wrote:
> I cast my vote in favor of making merged /usr the default.
>
> My reasoning behind this is as follows (disclaimer: rant mode =
> medium):
>
> The practice of storing system files in a secondary hierarchy below
> /usr was born out of disk
On 2018-11-16 4:11 a.m., Daniel Reurich wrote:
Hi Devuan followers, fans and friends,
Debian as of the upcoming Buster release looks to be implementing a
merged /usr by default. At this stage there is no plan to make it
forced... but you never know what happens when their Technical Committee
Hi Daniel.
Daniel Reurich - 16.11.18, 10:11:
> Debian as of the upcoming Buster release looks to be implementing a
> merged /usr by default. At this stage there is no plan to make it
> forced... but you never know what happens when their Technical
> Committee suddenly decides it's an issue they
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 04:10:17 -0800
spiralofhope wrote:
> I conclude this is a transitory step toward making this mandatory;
> something like propagating the idea to ease transitional pains.
Oh, and I suppose I could chime in on the notion of Devuan following
suit.
Of course it should. At this
Quoting Stephan Seitz (stse+dev...@fsing.rootsland.net):
> That’s fine for you and your server, but the question is what this
> distribution should do.
Actually, no. That is _not_ the question I was answering. To reresh
your memory, Rowland Perry asked: "Can anybody explain the bad points
of
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 22:11:17 +1300
Daniel Reurich wrote:
> At this stage there is no plan to make it forced...
Not publicly.
On the one hand, this is additional work.
On the other hand, we've seen efforts focused toward fewer choices /
committing to less development variety (though whether
On Fr, Nov 16, 2018 at 03:23:53 -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
My view: I need the contents of /bin, /sbin, /lib, and /lib64
to be functional if /usr for any reason cannot be, or is not, mounted,
because the role of those subtrees on my systems is to house tools the
superuser might need for backup,
Quoting Rowland Penny (rpe...@samba.org):
> Can anybody explain the bad points of doing the merger ?
> I ask this because everything I can find says it is a good thing, but
> they said systemd was a good thing ;-)
This topic has been obscured by a massive amount of special-pleading and
Steve Litt wrote on 16.11.18 11:11:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 22:11:17 +1300
> Daniel Reurich wrote:
[...]
>> So... for Devuan, do we want to default to a merged /usr in our coming
>> release of Beowulf or are we going to resist another pointless
>> rearranging of the deck chairs...
>>
>> Keen to get
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:19:30AM +, Rowland Penny wrote:
[cut]
>
> So, after reading Steve's enlightening description, I am with him, the
> merge is only needed by systemd and seems to be a way of forcing it on
> everybody, so I am against it.
>
It would be actually more productive to
Daniel Reurich wrote on 16.11.18 10:11:
[...]
> So... for Devuan, do we want to default to a merged /usr in our coming
> release of Beowulf or are we going to resist another pointless
> rearranging of the deck chairs...
>
> Keen to get some feedback on this
[...]
I cast my vote in favor of
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 05:11:01 -0500
Steve Litt wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 22:11:17 +1300
> Daniel Reurich wrote:
>
> > Hi Devuan followers, fans and friends,
> >
> > Debian as of the upcoming Buster release looks to be implementing a
> > merged /usr by default. At this stage there is no
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 22:11:17 +1300
Daniel Reurich wrote:
> Hi Devuan followers, fans and friends,
>
> Debian as of the upcoming Buster release looks to be implementing a
> merged /usr by default. At this stage there is no plan to make it
> forced... but you never know what happens when their
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 22:11:17 +1300
Daniel Reurich wrote:
> Hi Devuan followers, fans and friends,
>
> Debian as of the upcoming Buster release looks to be implementing a
> merged /usr by default. At this stage there is no plan to make it
> forced... but you never know what happens when their
Hi Devuan followers, fans and friends,
Debian as of the upcoming Buster release looks to be implementing a
merged /usr by default. At this stage there is no plan to make it
forced... but you never know what happens when their Technical Committee
suddenly decides it's an issue they need to force
46 matches
Mail list logo
