Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 06/04/16 17:06, Richard Yao wrote: > > That does not address the problems of supporting this configuration in a > rolling release. > > Formats in /etc can fall out of sync with software in /usr. If boot > options change, the stuff in /etc/init.d is not updated. If you add > software, the update

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 04/06/2016 11:11 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 4:58:05 PM CEST, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr out of the equation? I >> happen to have a few workstations that load their /usr off an NFS share >> presently, > > > This is

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On 04/06/2016 10:58 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr out of the equation? I > happen to have a few workstations that load their /usr off an NFS share > presently, with some bodgery-workarounds I did pre the udev notification > about initramfs's which I have

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 4:58:05 PM CEST, M. J. Everitt wrote: What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr out of the equation? I happen to have a few workstations that load their /usr off an NFS share presently, This is precisely one case where I see benefits: no need to correlate /

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr out of the equation? I happen to have a few workstations that load their /usr off an NFS share presently, with some bodgery-workarounds I did pre the udev notification about initramfs's which I have never got around to implementing (although I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 4:04:05 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote: Most systems would switch fine. The ones configured to depend on /usr not being mounted in early boot would not. That is the reason automatically migrating people is not the best idea. I believe any script/binary should not run

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

> On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:55 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 09:42:04 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > >>> This was invented in Solaris and copied by RHEL. The upgrade >>> path for the /usr merge on those systems is a complete >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 09:42:04 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > > This was invented in Solaris and copied by RHEL. The upgrade > > path for the /usr merge on those systems is a complete > > reinstall. Upgrading from RHEL6 to RHEL7 this Solaris 10 to > > Solaris 11 is not

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:15:58 AM CEST, Richard Yao wrote: On Apr 4, 2016, at 9:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote: All, I thought that since the usr merge is coming up again, and since I lost track of the message where it was brought up, I would open a new thread to discuss

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

> On Apr 4, 2016, at 9:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > All, > > I thought that since the usr merge is coming up again, and since I lost > track of the message where it was brought up, I would open a > new thread to discuss it. > > When it came up before, some were saying

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 2:26:53 PM CEST, Duncan wrote: Alexis Ballier posted on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 12:10:51 +0200 as excerpted: On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 3:19:59 AM CEST, William Hubbs wrote: [...] ... As I said in the other thread, I'm running merged /usr and bin/sbin here, except that I

Re: [gentoo-dev] usr merge

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 3:19:59 AM CEST, William Hubbs wrote: [...] I don't think creating usr merged stages would be that difficult. I think it would just be a matter of creating a new version of baselayout that puts these symlinks in place: /bin->usr/bin /lib->usr/lib /lib32->usr/lib32

[gentoo-dev] usr merge

All, I thought that since the usr merge is coming up again, and since I lost track of the message where it was brought up, I would open a new thread to discuss it. When it came up before, some were saying that the /usr merge violates the fhs. I don't remember the specifics of what the claim was

[gentoo-dev] /usr merge Was: [PATCH 00/21] gen_usr_ldscript: migrate away from a sep-/usr by default

Alexis Ballier posted on Mon, 04 Apr 2016 09:12:16 +0200 as excerpted: >> The /usr merge is a separate issue, which I agree with as well, but >> that was never brought to council, and it is controversial in the >> Gentoo camp because some folks claim fhs doesn't allow it. > > Getting a bit OT,

<    1   2