On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Pandu Poluan wrote: > > On Oct 15, 2011 5:49 AM, "Dale" <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Neil Bothwick wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:15:24 -0500, Dale wrote: >>> >>>> A'right now. I'm going to start on hal and /usr being on / again. :-P >>> >>> Jeez, 43 years on and you're still going on about it... >>> >>> >> >> Dang, I was only a year old when hal came out? That just doubled my age. >> It's closer to what I feel like tho. >> >> I'm still not happy with /usr being required tho. That is still standing >> on a bad nerve. Don't worry tho, I got plenty of those bad nerves. :-P >> > > Do you know that there's a plan to move /var/run to / also? ;-) > > Rgds, > > > Now someone on here swears up and down that /var isn't going to be required > on /.
/var != /var/run /var != /var/lock /var/run is going in /run, but /var/run (by definition) only contains things like PID files and runtime sockets. In the same vein, /var/lock also is going into /run/lock. I have acknowledged this from the very beginning, and I have been pointing out that implying that because those two (really small and bounded) directories of /var are going into /run and /run/lock, it doesn't mean that the whole /var will go into /. That is disinformation. Nobody has even proposed that /var should go into the same partition as /. *Nobody*, and the simplest proof of that is that nobody has produced a single proof to the contrary. Not a single email, blog post, or wiki entry from any system developer even mentions the possibility of requiring /var to be in the same partition as /. Whoever says that /var will be required to be on the same partition as / is either wildly speculating, or spreading FUD. > I'm telling ya'll, /home is coming. That is just ridiculous. > We are going to end up where we > can only have one drive in our Linux boxes for the OS and its relatives. And so is this: more FUD. > That or we will ALL have to start using the pesky init* thingy. More FUD: the current proposal (from Zac, the principal coder of portage, and someone who actually wrotes code and know what he is talking about) is this: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729fe8.xml It basically removes the need for a "pesky init* thingy", although for the life of me I cannot understand why someone will not see the technical advantages of actually using an initramfs. > I got 7 acres of land here, complete with trees. If someone can find the > dev that started this mess, I can find some rope. Just saying. ;-) Oh, I > live half a mile from the river too. Makes for a good dump site. lol > > I noticed the other day that when LVM tries to start, it fails. I have /var > on a separate partition here. It was complaining about something on /var > missing. So, you may be late in reporting this. I think it is already > needed for LVM if /usr or /var is on a separate partition. Again, get the facts right. If you use LVM you will need to use an initramfs. If you only use a separated /usr you will be able to use Zac's proposal. In no case whatsoever you will be required to have /var on the same partition as /. Nobody has ever proposed that. /run and /run/lock are not /var. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
