On 03/14/12 14:56, Zac Medico wrote: > On 03/14/2012 11:36 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 19:58, Matthew Summers >> <quantumsumm...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> Why is an in-kernel initramfs so bad anyway? I am baffled. Its quite >>> nice to have a minimal recovery env in case mounting fails, etc, etc, >>> etc. >> >> There is nothing bad about initramfs. I think that you are misreading >> the arguments above. > > Whatever the arguments may be, the whole discussion boils down to the > fact that the only people who seem to have a "problem" are those that > have a separate /usr partition and simultaneously refuse to use an > initramfs.
I do not have a separate /usr partition, however I agree with Joshua Kinard's stance regarding the /usr move. The point of having a separate /usr was to enable UNIX to exceed the space constraints that a 1.5MB hard disk placed on rootfs. As far as I know, we do not support a 1.5MB rootfs so it would make sense to deprecate the practice of having things that belong in / in /usr directory, as opposed to making /usr into a new /. Deprecation of this practice would mean that people could type /bin/command instead of /usr/bin/command in situations where absolute paths are necessary. We could symlink things in /usr to rootfs for compatibility with legacy software. In a more extreme case, we could symlink /usr to /, which would make plenty of sense given that we do not need a separate /usr at all.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
