On Wed, 8 May 2013 17:32:13 +0200, Helmut Grohne <hel...@subdivi.de> wrote: >On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 12:19:25PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: >> Fedora updates are different. (And so are Ubuntu updates, if one considers >> that it's possible to provide fixup scripts to update-manager pre-upgrade.) >> As long as we're supporting upgrades through plain apt, that's going to >> be hard. Especially if you have non-distro packages installed that need >> to be migrated as well, with the tracking information updated. > >Maybe the issue here shouldn't be changing the default. After all there >is a quite vocal opposition to such a step. I fail to see consensus in >the recent mails without even contributing a personal opinion here. > >So really what does it take to e.g. move /bin and stuff to /usr? Did >anyone try that? Where is that documented? What problems did occur?
If we force a much bigger /, the chance of a broken / filesystem increases. If / is fine, one has a chance to fix the system without booting to rescue. So, a small / both decreases the probability of a boot failure and makes fixing breakage easier. If we change our software so that the system never gets beyond initrd stage if mount /usr fails, we increase the change of breaking boot because _two_ filesystems need to be fine and mounted before we leave initrd. Both changes are bad from a robustness point of view. Keeping the root fs small was a good idea 20 years ago, and it still is. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- 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/e1ua8sq-0004zd...@swivel.zugschlus.de
