[Mageia-dev] Please test: initscripts+systemd in updates_testing

Tue Nov 1 19:08:40 CET 2011

'Twas brillig, and Johnny A. Solbu at 01/11/11 17:25 did gyre and gimble:
+> On Tuesday 01 November 2011 13:24, Michael Scherer wrote:
+>> I suggest to re-read the other mails of the thread, especially the
+>> one where I give this url : 
+>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-devel/msg158642.html
+> 
+> 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'm afraid it's quite apparent that you've not read them well enough as
+the questions you are asking clearly point to a misunderstanding about
+the issue.
+
+I've laboured this specific point you've missed in four of my messages
+on list this and even quoted certain sections of the systemd wiki that
+clearly outline it too. Thomas also initially misunderstood and then
+realised the situation is really not that bad. I suggest you read
+Thomas' latest messages on this thread and hopefully you'll see the
+point I seem to have immense trouble getting across to people.
+
+> So I'll ask again: what substantial benefit do I get by having / and
+> usr on the same filesystem / partition? 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?
+
+OK, so this is a reasonable question to ask, BUT, the fact that you are
+asking this question suggest that you believe that having a separate
+partition for /usr will somehow be banned or impossible in the future.
+As Nicolas pointed out in his reply, this is NOT the case!
+
+You can have /usr on a separate partition if you like, it's just that it
+will NOT be the job of init (i.e. pid 1) to mount it for you. When init
+starts it must already be mounted. This means mounting has to happen
+inside the initramfs.
+
+> Judging by this thread and the Fedora thread I am not alone on having
+> seriosus doubts on this issiue.
+
+There is a huge amount of misunderstanding on the issue. It takes
+several emails to try and patiently explain to people that the violent
+reaction they had is based on a misunderstanding of the problem and of
+the solution. This is clearly shown in your replies here. Again: there
+is no statement that says /usr cannot be on a separate partition.
+
+Of course for simpler systems (most desktops and laptops) there is also
+no specific gain or need to have it separate (I've very deliberately NOT
+kept it separate on any laptop/desktop installed in the last 5 years
+there just is not any practical advantage). So many people will indeed
+be advocating that user don't do it if they do not have any specific,
+special need to do so.
+
+>> ( PS: please try to not insult others with saying thing like "most 
+>> stupid thing ever performed" ).
+> 
+> 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!
+
+This is really not about "handling it" or otherwise. It's about the
+atmosphere of of the discussion on the topic. The choice of wording or
+the "tone" used in conversation can convey a distinct feeling of
+disrespect or derision towards colleagues who take the time to document
+the issues clearly and try and drive things forward. This is compounded
+when people do not actually grasp the fundamentals of the problem or
+appreciate the solutions fully. Then a cycle starts because when people
+are told they are wrong (because they've clearly misunderstood, not
+because their concern is invalid), they get MORE defensive and thus the
+tone gets even worse and things spiral into flames and trolls. So please
+do re-read the latest mails on the topic in this thread and try to
+appreciate that you will ultimately still be allowed to have /usr on a
+separate partition if you like.
+
+> 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. :-)=
+
+And again, there is not a "filesystem requirement change", there is just
+a "responsibility for who mounts that filesystem change".
+
+Col
+
+
+-- 
+
+Colin Guthrie
+colin(at)mageia.org
+http://colin.guthr.ie/
+
+Day Job:
+  Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/
+Open Source:
+  Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/
+  PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/
+  Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
+