2017-07-01 20:37 GMT-03:00 Steve Litt:
> So I was wondering what the original intent was in having these two
> directories directly off the root? Is it so the init and supervision
> can proceed even before partition mounts are complete? Is there some
> other reason?

It has been mentioned in passing in other replies (and extensively in
other threads of this mailing list), but the answer is: Daniel J.
Bernstein's slashpackage convention.

* http://cr.yp.to/slashpackage/management.html
* http://cr.yp.to/slashpackage/versions.html

(And everything else in http://cr.yp.to/slashpackage, really)

> Can anyone recommend setups that fulfill the reasons for
> the direct-off-root dirs without having direct-off-root dirs?

At first sight I don't see anything wrong with Debian stretch's
packaging of runit. The list of files looks like it has all the needed
components, it respects the FHS layout, and depends only on the libc,
so probably can work on Devuan without modifications.

* https://packages.debian.org/stretch/runit
* https://packages.debian.org/stretch/amd64/runit/filelist

(Well, I hate /usr/bin and /usr/sbin for files that might be
components of an init system; if /usr is a separate filesystem it
needs an initramfs. But then again, binary-based distributions can't
probably boot without one anyway, unless the user compiles its own

As the WWW page says, "complete init replacement needs to be done by hand":

* https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=861536

Maybe you could help the Devuan project by trying document how to do
*that*. Package runit-init seems to have been dropped, and I can't
find its list of files in Debian's WWW package database. But judging
by what the bug report says, it was broken indeed (messages #10 and
#39 to me are the ones that more clearly explain why).


Reply via email to