Darren Salt <li...@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk> writes:
> I demand that Ben Hutchings may or may not have written...
>
>> On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 20:42 +0000, Philip Hands wrote:
>> We're now debating what, if any, effort we should make to continue to
>> support running init scripts without /usr mounted. There is also
>> discussion of whether separate / and /usr partitions should be supported or
>> deprecated, but I think that's quite separate.
>
> If /usr gets mounted earlier, fine. I'm happy if / can be used without
> needing /usr for basic recovery.
>
> I fully intend to continue with lilo, separate /usr and no initramfs/initrd.
> I *may* decide to stop using a separate /usr should I need to replace
> hardware â but probably not before then.
>
> I will NOT use an initramfs just to have /usr mounted early enough.
Hopfully the consensus will be, and that is what it seems to be at the
moment, that a seperate /usr remains supported but the 0.1% crazy septups
will need to use initramfs or a similar mechanism to still be able to
mount /usr with just /.
So as long as you don't do something crazy like have /usr on nfs4 over
wireless that won't be a problem. Having an init script that mounts /usr
from a local partition is easy enough and only needs a tiny and
managable set of packages to be in /.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ty4uuja3.fsf@frosties.localnet
