On 03/15/2012 05:27 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 03/14/2012 20:45, Zac Medico wrote: > >> On 03/14/2012 05:36 PM, David Leverton wrote: >>> On 14 March 2012 23:47, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing. >>> >>> Clearly something must have changed in udev 181 to make >>> /usr-without-initramfs not work anymore, and someone must have done >>> something to make that change happen, unless udev has aquired the >>> ability to evolve by itself. >> >> You're pointing your finger at udev, but the udev change is just a >> symptom of a more general shift away from supporting the "/ is a >> self-contained boot disk that is independent of /usr" use case. > > > I think it's better to say that udev is one of the more important components > of your average Linux system that's decided to support a unified root + /usr > filesystem. If we were looking at some non-critical, non-boot service that > made this decision, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
They're intertwined though, since having a unified root implies that there is no support for the "/ is a self-contained boot disk that is independent of /usr" use case, and the bulk of people's opposition to having a unified root seems to stem from their dependence on the "/ is a self-contained boot disk that is independent of /usr" use case. So, the question at the heart of the whole discussion is: Should we support the "/ is a self-contained boot disk that is independent of /usr" use case? -- Thanks, Zac
