On 03/14/2012 01:03 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > 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.
I'm not seeing any compelling benefits here that would justify a lack of conformity with other *nix distros. It seems almost as though it's an attempt to be different for the sake of being different, perhaps a symptom of something like NIH syndrome. -- Thanks, Zac
