On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 2:03 AM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 09:57:15PM +0000, David Leverton wrote: > > William Hubbs wrote: > > > The reason the split happened is pretty straight forward, and every other > > > "justification" for continuing it was come up with after the fact. > > > > I keep hearing this, but I really don't see how it's relevant. I'm sure > > you'll find lots of things in your life that you use for some purpose > > other than what they were originally invented for¹, and there's no > > reason why /usr should be any different. All that matters is whether or > > not the newer reasons for having separate /usr actually provide a benefit. > > And I would argue that the maintenance cost of having separate /usr in a > general sense is much higher than the benefit it provides. > > The problem with it is that it is next to impossible nowadays to define > what should go in / vs what should go in /usr. > > William
Now it is difficult as too much time it was ignored. In the past it was quite simple, everything that requires a server to reach default runlevel. The problem is that instead of telling users: "If you are using special user mode devices, such as bluetooth keyboards, please make sure /usr is mounted at boot", we enforce all that configuration, so now initramfs should contain all that once was / with much harder maintenance. Alon
