Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:56:31PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl): > > > Because of lack of Unicode, those terminals couldn't do it right. But > > that's no more: here's a kernel patch set which makes the tty line > > discipline handle the Great Runes

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl): > Because of lack of Unicode, those terminals couldn't do it right. But > that's no more: here's a kernel patch set which makes the tty line > discipline handle the Great Runes correctly: > https://github.com/kilobyte/linux/commits/runes > > "stty

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 06:12:03AM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote: > AFAIR Dennis Ritchie lamented the spread of the capitalized form UNIX, he > insisted it was never meant to be that way and that at AT/Bell Labs they > always wrote Unix. But, alas! all capital lettering was ubiquitous back >

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 at 06:12:03 +0100 Alessandro Selli wrote: > On Tue, 14 Nov at 2017 15:35:08 -0800 > Rick Moen wrote: > >> [1] The grammarian in me keeps insisting it shouldn't have been 'UNIX', >> not being an acronym. > > AFAIR Dennis

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue, 14 Nov at 2017 15:35:08 -0800 Rick Moen wrote: > [1] The grammarian in me keeps insisting it shouldn't have been 'UNIX', > not being an acronym. AFAIR Dennis Ritchie lamented the spread of the capitalized form UNIX, he insisted it was never meant to be that way

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

Quoting Joerg Reisenweber (reisenwe...@web.de): > On Mon 13 November 2017 15:46:30 John Hughes wrote: > > systemd didn't exist in 1991 when USL decided that for SVR4.2 /bin, /lib > > and /sbin should just be symlinks to /usr. > > And when did USL (whoever that is) decide that SVR4.2 doesn't

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:05:35 -0500 Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 03:07:09PM +0100, John Hughes wrote: > > On 14/11/17 12:53, Rowland Penny wrote: > > >On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:40:02 +0100 > > >John Hughes wrote: > > > > > >>Why do

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 at 13:35:13 +0100 Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > Obviously a systemd | usr_on_/ > system would not fit onto that tiny NAND, while a 'classical orthodox' > system is supposed to work just fine *without* /usr/ at least in a > singleuser mode which may well be

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 03:07:09PM +0100, John Hughes wrote: > On 14/11/17 12:53, Rowland Penny wrote: > >On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:40:02 +0100 > >John Hughes wrote: > > > >>Why do you keep claiming the /usr problem is something to do with > >>systemd? > >Probably because it

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 14/11/17 12:53, Rowland Penny wrote: On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:40:02 +0100 John Hughes wrote: On 14/11/17 12:32, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: On Tue 14 November 2017 10:42:48 John Hughes wrote: Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly funny you

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue 14 November 2017 10:42:48 John Hughes wrote: > Of course SVR4.2 could be ported to an ARM SoC -- you'd just put /stand > on the internal NAND. (/stand was the SVR4.2 name for what Linux called > /boot). Let me put it straight for you: /noot doesn't get you anywhere to bring up a

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:40:02 +0100 John Hughes wrote: > On 14/11/17 12:32, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > > On Tue 14 November 2017 10:42:48 John Hughes wrote: > >> Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, > >> poorly > > funny you quote that in this

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 14/11/17 12:32, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: On Tue 14 November 2017 10:42:48 John Hughes wrote: Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly funny you quote that in this particular context. Seems to me the whole mess introduced by systemd (incl the /usr/ disaster) is

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue 14 November 2017 10:42:48 John Hughes wrote: > Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly funny you quote that in this particular context. Seems to me the whole mess introduced by systemd (incl the /usr/ disaster) is exactly that: reinventing unix poorly

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 14/11/17 08:30, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: On Mon 13 November 2017 15:46:30 John Hughes wrote: systemd didn't exist in 1991 when USL decided that for SVR4.2 /bin, /lib and /sbin should just be symlinks to /usr. And when did USL (whoever that is) USL = UNIX System Laboratories, the

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Mon 13 November 2017 15:46:30 John Hughes wrote: > systemd didn't exist in 1991 when USL decided that for SVR4.2 /bin, /lib > and /sbin should just be symlinks to /usr. And when did USL (whoever that is) decide that SVR4.2 doesn't care about being able to run on any ARM SoC? And how's that

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 12:42:50 +0100 Adam Borowski wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:14:43AM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 19:45:02 +0100 >> Adam Borowski wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 13/11/17 13:09, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: On Sun 12 November 2017 21:54:36 Steve Litt wrote: One more thing: What did people do before maybe 2010, when /sbin, /bin, /usr/sbin, and /user/bin were four separate directories? Was life that hard back then? Were develpers smarter? I'd bet all and

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Sun 12 November 2017 21:54:36 Steve Litt wrote: > One more thing: What did people do before maybe 2010, > when /sbin, /bin, /usr/sbin, and /user/bin were four separate > directories? Was life that hard back then? Were develpers smarter? I'd bet all and my butt on the latter ;-) It's just too

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Mon 13 November 2017 00:18:15 Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:36:17PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > > On Sun 12 November 2017 19:45:02 Adam Borowski wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > > > > The "too much work" argument is a

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 04:09:21PM -0600, Patrick Meade wrote: > On 11/12/2017 12:45 PM, Adam Borowski wrote: > > At least microcode is mandatory on any modern x86 CPUs, or you risk severe > > data loss issues that differ by CPU sub-model. You may think that just > > because without microcode

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:14:43AM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote: > On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 19:45:02 +0100 > Adam Borowski wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > >> The "too much work" argument is a very embarrassing one - it's the >

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 19:45:02 +0100 Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > > The "too much work" argument is a very embarrassing one - it's the > > genuine duty of distro maintainers to take care of exactly such > > stuff.

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:36:17PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > On Sun 12 November 2017 19:45:02 Adam Borowski wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > > > The "too much work" argument is a very embarrassing one - it's the genuine > > > duty of distro

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 19:45:02 +0100 Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: >> The "too much work" argument is a very embarrassing one - it's the >> genuine duty of distro maintainers to take care of exactly such stuff. >>

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Sun 12 November 2017 19:45:02 Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > > The "too much work" argument is a very embarrassing one - it's the genuine > > duty of distro maintainers to take care of exactly such stuff. The > > argument > > that

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi folks, I add the lvm source package to my debian unbreak repository[0][1]. Note that there is also a debian-security repository[2] that fixes some security problems introduced by debian (and refused upstream for security reason). Regards

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Sun 12 November 2017 09:19:22 John Hughes wrote: > On 12/11/17 04:24, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: > > On Tue 07 November 2017 17:50:27 John Hughes wrote: > >> The separation of / and /usr is a relic of really, really tiny disk > >> sizes. > > > > Like, for example, ARMv7 systems with a 128MB NAND

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

Quoting John Hughes (j...@atlantech.com): > I have a N900, that is not news to me and has already been addressed > by Adam Borowski: > https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20171108.052040.5cb5ca3d.en.html Adam saying frequently 'There's no gain to put / and /usr on separate filesystem[s]'

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 12/11/17 04:24, Joerg Reisenweber wrote: On Tue 07 November 2017 17:50:27 John Hughes wrote: The separation of / and /usr is a relic of really, really tiny disk sizes. Like, for example, ARMv7 systems with a 128MB NAND to boot from, keeping /usr on a separate storage like SSD? Doesn't sound

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue 07 November 2017 17:50:27 John Hughes wrote: > The separation of / and /usr is a relic of really, really tiny disk sizes. Like, for example, ARMv7 systems with a 128MB NAND to boot from, keeping /usr on a separate storage like SSD? Doesn't sound like an obsolete ancient relic /j

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

> John Hughes' sole function on DNG is to say, in many different ways, > "systemd isn't so bad." Given that systemd being bad is the > foundational belief that created the Devuan project thus the DNG list, > he knows he's just making trouble. He's a troll. Don't feed the troll. > > I /dev/nulled

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

Am 08/11/2017 um 12:18 schrieb Alessandro Selli: > The "my own PC has been like this so many years" reasoning is a very poor > justification for a design decision that impacts users that run their > systems in the most diverse scenarios and environments, just like the "this > (bad) decision was

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 22:04:05 -0800 Rick Moen wrote: >> I don't get why you'd want to keep moving things around on the real >> system if you can isolate it into initrd. > > OK, I believe you, Adam. You don't. This is a brush on poetry! :-) Alessandro

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 17:50:27 +0100 John Hughes wrote: > On 07/11/17 17:41, dev wrote: >> >> On 11/07/2017 10:29 AM, John Hughes wrote: >>> On 07/11/17 17:13, Klaus Ethgen wrote: [ separate / and /usr ] is the best way to keep your /usr flexible to further lvm

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

Am Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 schrieb Steve Litt: > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 21:30:02 +0100 > marc wrote: > > > Hello > > Hi Marc, > > === > Quote from John Hughes > > > I come from a Unix background -- separate /usr was deprecated

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

Quoting John Hughes (j...@atlantech.com): > Wave Without a Shore by C.J. Cherryh Review by Randy Byers: http://randy-byers.livejournal.com/600709.html (This Cherryh short novel is most often found, these days, in omnibus volume _Alternate Realities_, with two other short novels.) Your

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 08/11/17 03:33, Steve Litt wrote: 1) If a tree falls in the woods but there's nobody to hear it, did it make a sound? Recommended reading for Steve Litt and others who use a kill-file (not that he'll see this): Wave Without a Shore by C.J. Cherryh

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl): > Systemd is bad, but dropping the pretense that following the needs of _one_ > particular stone-age PDP install is sound design is not bad. It would be illogical to assert that the only conceivable justification for separate /usr was Thompson &

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:33:30PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > John Hughes' sole function on DNG is to say, in many different ways, > "systemd isn't so bad." Given that systemd being bad is the > foundational belief that created the Devuan project thus the DNG list, > he knows he's just making

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 21:30:02 +0100 marc wrote: > Hello Hi Marc, === Quote from John Hughes > > I come from a Unix background -- separate /usr was deprecated in > > the 1990's with SVR4.2, I'm kind of amazed it took Linux so

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

Quoting John Hughes (j...@atlantech.com): > The separation of / and /usr is a relic of really, really tiny disk sizes. It _originated_ in everything not fitting on one disk on Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie's PDP-11, at a point in 1971, originally as a place for user home directories. Rob

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

Hello > I come from a Unix background -- separate /usr was deprecated in the 1990's > with SVR4.2, I'm kind of amazed it took Linux so long to catch up. Clearly I must have been working in a parallel universe - the commercial unix systems that I remember from the 90s did have /usr and / (some

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 05:14:21PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > #157 > > Regards >Klaus Good things happen to those who can wait ;) HND KatolaZ -- [ ~.,_ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - Devuan -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ "+. katolaz

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 11/07/2017 10:50 AM, John Hughes wrote: > Neither /home not /var are on /, for obvious reasons.  / is for > mostly-static things that are owned by the OS or the admin. Ah, I misunderstood. Apologies for the static. ___ Dng mailing list

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 07/11/17 17:50, John Hughes wrote: The separation of / and /usr is a relic of really, really tiny disk sizes. (The first machine I used had 8 megacharacter disks -- not megabyte, megacharacter.   Six bit characters.  Ok, it didn't run Unix.  :-)).

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 07/11/17 17:41, dev wrote: On 11/07/2017 10:29 AM, John Hughes wrote: On 07/11/17 17:13, Klaus Ethgen wrote: [ separate / and /usr ] is the best way to keep your /usr flexible to further lvm grows for example. Personally I have a / on a lvm2 volume.  Works OK for me, I see no loss in

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 11/07/2017 10:29 AM, John Hughes wrote: > On 07/11/17 17:13, Klaus Ethgen wrote: >> [ separate / and /usr ] is the best way to keep your /usr flexible to >> further lvm grows for example. > > Personally I have a / on a lvm2 volume.  Works OK for me, I see no loss > in flexibility. Until a

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 07/11/17 17:13, Klaus Ethgen wrote: [ separate / and /usr ] is the best way to keep your /usr flexible to further lvm grows for example. Personally I have a / on a lvm2 volume.  Works OK for me, I see no loss in flexibility. Like I say, SVR4.2 deprecated separate /usr in the 1990's.  I

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 #157 Regards Klaus - -- Klaus Ethgen http://www.ethgen.ch/ pub 4096R/4E20AF1C 2011-05-16Klaus Ethgen Fingerprint: 85D4 CA42 952C 949B 1753 62B3 79D0 B06F 4E20 AF1C -BEGIN

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Di den 7. Nov 2017 um 17:07 schrieb John Hughes: > > Well, Debian deprecated a separate /usr as systemd is not working good > > with a separate /usr. > > They actually deprecated it as many things were not working with a separate > /usr. 

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 07/11/17 16:50, Klaus Ethgen wrote: If you have an seperate /usr (what is not supported by the ignorance of systemd) and that /usr on lvm and a kernel with no initrd (what does not exist in the ignorance of systemd), then you are doomed and your system will not boot anymore. What does this

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

Am Di den 7. Nov 2017 um 17:00 schrieb Klaus Ethgen: > > So, could you please also file a bug report in Devuan with a link to > > Debian's bug report? Use bugs.devuan.org for that. > > Done. Hmm... Doesn't seem to work. I sent the attached mail but nothing happened. Regards Klaus -- Klaus

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

Am 07/11/2017 um 17:00 schrieb Klaus Ethgen: > The first broken version is 2.02.175-1, or other way, the last working > version is 2.02.173-1. > >> So, could you please also file a bug report in Devuan with a link to >> Debian's bug report? Use bugs.devuan.org for that. > Done. > >> Change log

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Di den 7. Nov 2017 um 16:50 schrieb John Hughes: > So, it seems some things depend on lz4.  But nothing mentions it directly. > > But, here's the problem -- lvm2 depends on > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsystemd.so.0 and *that* depends on liblz4. >

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Di den 7. Nov 2017 um 16:22 schrieb Evilham: [broken lvm2 in debian] > This is quite serious. > > If you found the issue only appears with 2.02.175-1, Devuan Jessie and > Ascii would be safe, so no need to worry yet. We do have to keep track >

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Di den 7. Nov 2017 um 16:21 schrieb John Hughes: > On 07/11/17 15:29, Klaus Ethgen wrote: > > > today I suffered by a heavy bug in lvm2. With version 2.02.175-1 it > > starts to depend on library in /usr. > > Which binary? What library in

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 07/11/17 16:21, John Hughes wrote: On 07/11/17 15:29, Klaus Ethgen wrote: today I suffered by a heavy bug in lvm2. With version 2.02.175-1 it starts to depend on library in /usr. Which binary? What library in /usr? So, it seems some things depend on lz4.  But nothing mentions it

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

Am 07/11/2017 um 16:22 schrieb Evilham: > This is currently the last pushed commit (Release 2.02.178-1): > https://gitlab.com/debian-lvm/lvm2/commit/90bc98f3828032a1ad24daf14e2e2f2f704f1bd6 I meant 2.02.175-1, of course. -- Evilham ___ Dng mailing list

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

Hallo Klaus, Am 07/11/2017 um 15:29 schrieb Klaus Ethgen: > today I suffered by a heavy bug in lvm2. With version 2.02.175-1 it > starts to depend on library in /usr. > > If you have an seperate /usr (what is not supported by the ignorance of > systemd) and that /usr on lvm and a kernel with no

Re: [DNG] WARNING: lvm2 > 2.02.173-1 breaks some systems and make them unbootable

On 07/11/17 15:29, Klaus Ethgen wrote: today I suffered by a heavy bug in lvm2. With version 2.02.175-1 it starts to depend on library in /usr. Which binary? What library in /usr? If you have an seperate /usr (what is not supported by the ignorance of systemd) and that /usr on lvm and a