1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Please test: initscripts+systemd in updates_testing
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Please%20test%3A%20initscripts%2Bsystemd%20in%20updates_testing&In-Reply-To=%3C4EB08953.7060409%40laposte.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="009284.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="009289.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Please test: initscripts+systemd in updates_testing</H1>
<B>andre999</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Please%20test%3A%20initscripts%2Bsystemd%20in%20updates_testing&In-Reply-To=%3C4EB08953.7060409%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Please test: initscripts+systemd in updates_testing">andre999mga at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Wed Nov 2 01:05:39 CET 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="009284.html">[Mageia-dev] Please test: initscripts+systemd in updates_testing
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="009289.html">[Mageia-dev] Please test: initscripts+systemd in updates_testing
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#9287">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#9287">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#9287">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#9287">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Johnny A. Solbu a écrit :
><i> On Tuesday 01 November 2011 13:24, Michael Scherer wrote:
</I>><i>
</I>>><i> I suggest to re-read the other mails of the thread, especially the one
</I>>><i> where I give this url :
</I>>><i> <A HREF="http://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-devel/msg158642.html">http://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-devel/msg158642.html</A>
</I>>><i>
</I>><i> I have read the entire thread on the Fedora list, every message, including that specific message, and I have done the same for this thread here and my question is not answered.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> So I'll ask again: what substantial benefit do I get by having / and usr on the same filesystem / partition?
</I>><i> I can agree to some extend on moving /*bin and co. to /usr, But what is the benefit on requireing /usr NOT to be a separate filesystem?
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Judging by this thread and the Fedora thread I am not alone on having seriosus doubts on this issiue.
</I>><i>
</I>><i>
</I>>><i> ( PS: please try to not insult others with saying thing like "most
</I>>><i> stupid thing ever performed" ).
</I>>><i>
</I>><i> I'm sorry if someone feel trampled upon, but when I see something which I really do think is stupid and idiotic, I reserve the right to say so. If someone can't handle that, tough luck!
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Note: I am not, nor have I called anyone stupid or an idiot. I am calling this filesystem requirement change stupid and idiotic. There's a difference. :-)=
</I>><i>
</I>
No offense intended, but you don't see a slight advantage of not having
to mount a separate partition, and of sharing the space available on the
otherwise 2 separate partitions, particularly if the disk space is
somewhat limited ?
Since you have read the reference, you didn't notice that the option of
separate partitions is _not_ precluded ?
From what I understand, having separate partitions wouldn't be
essentially (if at all) any more complicated than it is already.
Historically, I would imagine that having separate /usr (and other)
partitions was probably more driven by limitations of disk space and
performance problems than anything else. (/home being an exception.)
However if one has / and /usr on the same partition, combining /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin and /usr/sbin would certainly be a lot simpler than it
is now.
I never could understand why the complication of separate /bin and
/sbin, and never appreciated the gymnastics of different commands with
the same name to handle root/non-root permissions for certain commands.
To me, avoiding unnecessary complication by design is a big plus.
Regards :-)
--
André
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="009284.html">[Mageia-dev] Please test: initscripts+systemd in updates_testing
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="009289.html">[Mageia-dev] Please test: initscripts+systemd in updates_testing
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#9287">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#9287">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#9287">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#9287">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
