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

Mon Oct 31 17:07:39 CET 2011

Le dimanche 30 octobre 2011 à 14:19 +0200, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
+> Colin Guthrie skrev 30.10.2011 13:26:
+> > 'Twas brillig, and Thomas Backlund at 29/10/11 21:13 did gyre and gimble:
+> 
+> >> So?
+> >> it's less impact on / than stuffing all of /usr on /
+> >
+> > I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. You'd be
+> > moving a whole bunch of stuff to /... And it becomes very tricky to
+> > administer exactly what to move to / as the dependencies are non-trivial
+> > to work out, the QA burden is very high to test all the various
+> > combinations of setups to ensure all the required bits have been moved to /
+> >
+> > After doing all that QA and ensuring all is well, then the whole
+> > separate of /usr and / is totally blurred anyway. As someone campaigning
+> > to keep /usr on a separate partition, I'd have thought this was what you
+> > were trying to protect against in the first place... it seems totally
+> > contradictory to suggest this as a solution.
+> >
+> > Keep in mind that one of the key aims in highlighting this issue via
+> > systemd is to actually ALLOW /usr to be a useful and self contained
+> > filesystem. If /usr is properly configured without leaking half of it to
+> > / it could be shared across multiple machines far more easily or even
+> > mounted as ro by default which could prove handy for security. Again,
+> > this is about highlighting the issues with an aim to making /usr much
+> > more useful. This is a laudable aim but you seem to be shooting it down
+> > due to gut reactions and prejudice. I've not yet seen any technical
+> > arguments from you about the topic.
+> >
+> 
+> I'm saying moving the stuff that is _really_ needed, not based on "udev 
+> might run"...
+> 
+> well, thinking some more on it I guess the real design flaw (not systemd 
+> specific) is using all of udev in init. Init should not care about more 
+> than getting disc access (and probably network for pxe  boots)
+
+That's the point that Lennart make, ie :
+"we used to have / to mount all partition and /usr to be mounted, now,
+we have initramfs to mount /, and then / to mount /usr, so it would be
+simpler to merge / and /usr" 
+
+So that's simple. For stuff needed for initial boot, we have initrd, for
+the rest, that's /usr/ 
+
+http://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-devel/msg158642.html
+
+> Then we wouldn't have to worry about "what udev might run" and could
+> keep a very clean /
+> 
+> >> Well, it _is_ idiotic if it breaks working setups / possibilities to
+> >> finetune systems.
+> >
+> > It depends on your definition of "working". Sure if you specifically
+> > work around the know limitations of the design then you may get a
+> > bootable system, which you could classify as working, but I wouldn't say
+> > this is a robust base. Just a house of cards waiting for the next
+> > failure. I'd rather try and address the problems properly and be frank
+> > about it in the discussions.
+> >
+> 
+> Well, it has worked 24/7 for servers for atleast last 15 years for
+> servers I maintain, so I'd say that is pretty robust.
+
+That's also what people say about manually compiling software in
+solaris, and I think they are wrong, so that's not really a compeling
+argument to my eyes. 
+
+In fact "using packages prevent me from finetuning my software" is also
+a common and recuring theme from the same people ( well, slightly less
+recuring nowadays as I didn't meet people telling me so since gentoo and
+slackware usage slightly dropped ). 
+
+We have unix server since 1970, that doesn't mean the assumption that
+lead to some design decision are not open to be revisited.
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+
+