On Monday, April 11, 2016 01:10:15 AM Raymond Jennings wrote:
> Please don't do this. I want my system left alone.
Please don't top-post, I want to have a logical flow of the text.
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:41 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2016 10:04:42 AM James Le Cuirot
Please don't do this. I want my system left alone.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:41 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2016 10:04:42 AM James Le Cuirot wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:09:35 +0200
> >
> > "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> > > I actually write my own initramfs because neither
On Sunday, April 10, 2016 10:04:42 AM James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:09:35 +0200
>
> "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> > I actually write my own initramfs because neither dracut not
> > genkernel end up with a convenient boot system.
> >
> > I have 2 disks, both encrypted.
> > I prefer on
On 04/10/2016 08:14, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>>
>> Create like, a table on the Wiki or some kind of metadata property
>> per-package
>> that can contain a boolean or tri-state flag indicating whether it works or
>> doesn't work (or kinda works)
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:18:37PM -0400, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
> > Half the reason we don't officially support running without /usr
> > mounted during early boot is that if we actually put everything in /
> > that could conceiva
On 4/10/16 8:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> Honestly, I'm still not quite sure why we're even having this
> discussion. I don't think anybody actually intends to make any
> changes at all. If they do, they should issue some kind of plan and
> indicate what they're looking for from everybody else
On 4/10/16 7:55 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 04/04/2016 21:19, William Hubbs wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I thought that since the usr merge is coming up again, and since I lost
>> track of the message where it was brought up, I would open a
>> new thread to discuss it.
Why is this coming up? What probl
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>
> Create like, a table on the Wiki or some kind of metadata property per-package
> that can contain a boolean or tri-state flag indicating whether it works or
> doesn't work (or kinda works) on split-usr. Or a tracker on Bugzie.
> Somethin
On 04/04/2016 21:19, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I thought that since the usr merge is coming up again, and since I lost
> track of the message where it was brought up, I would open a
> new thread to discuss it.
>
> When it came up before, some were saying that the /usr merge violates
> the f
On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:09:35 +0200
"J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> I actually write my own initramfs because neither dracut not
> genkernel end up with a convenient boot system.
>
> I have 2 disks, both encrypted.
> I prefer only to enter the decryption password once. Both Dracut and
> Genkernel insist
On Saturday, April 09, 2016 09:07:46 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:09 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > I actually write my own initramfs because neither dracut not genkernel end
> > up with a convenient boot system.
> >
> > I have 2 disks, both encrypted.
> > I prefer only to enter
On 10/04/16 04:49, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 1. As you point out, its not a package. That means it works
> differently than everything else, and it can't be used as a
> dependency/etc.
> 2. Genkernel's initramfs isn't all that great. Don't get me wrong -
> it was very good back when it was new. How
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 11:28 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> Ok I'm gonna push the Big Red Button here, and assume you may not have
> met 'genkernel' ..
Genkernel has been around for a LONG time. I'm well aware of it.
> ok its not a package, but its the nearest thing to
> Gentoo's solution to what y
On 10/04/16 04:08, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I think the bigger issue with the kernel is the huge configuration
> space it has. Chromium may have a ton of USE flags compared to most
> packages, but those pale in comparison to the kernel. Obviously it
> would not make sense to try to create a USE fla
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:17 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> I take your point, but I would argue that the kernel and boot subsystem
> really are special cases .. you don't go hacking around the chromium
> sources to fundamentally alter the way/order it works, right?! Likewise,
> if you don't like chro
On 10/04/16 03:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> By that argument, when you run emerge chromium shouldn't it just dump
> the chromium sources in /usr/src, so that you can build and install
> your own chromium?
>
> The whole point of a source-based package manager is that it actually
> BUILDs the packages
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:35 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> I think that is the potential for a stage4-style install. I think
> previous list discussions have maintained that the flexibility of gentoo
> is maintained by having a very basic install image, and a stage3 to
> bootstrap into, and have the u
On 10/04/16 02:14, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Part of me also wonders if Gentoo would be better off having emerge
> gentoo-sources actually BUILD the kernel and initramfs and not just
> dump a bunch of sources on the disk. Most distros consider an
> initramfs a no-brainer because it just ships already
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:37 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> I may have contributed to the latter point, but addressing the former
> specifically, I, like others, have /usr mounted on an NFS server for
> thin clients (not in the full-true sense, but with a very minimal /
> currently residing on USB).
>
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:09 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>
> I actually write my own initramfs because neither dracut not genkernel end up
> with a convenient boot system.
>
> I have 2 disks, both encrypted.
> I prefer only to enter the decryption password once. Both Dracut and Genkernel
> insist on as
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
> 160409 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Philip Webb
> wrote:
> >> I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable :
> >> I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub.
> >> I do use recent hardwar
On 10/04/16 00:53, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> The original discussion was about the usr merge [1], which is taking the
> binary parts of / and putting them in /usr, then inserting symlinks in /
> to preserve backward compatibility. Yes, I'm pointing to a document on
> fdo, but the systemd guys have n
On Saturday, April 09, 2016 05:15:08 PM James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:09:38 -0400
>
> waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> > > I never really got the mentality that using an initramfs is a
> > > burden.
> > >
> > One more piece of software that can go wrong. You have to
> >
> > mai
Hi Philip,
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 06:50:49PM -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
> Can you or anyone else answer my other question re the origin of the thread ?
> -- ie is this a revival of not putting /usr on its own partition
> or is it a new proposal to alter the file system in some other way ?
The o
On 09/04/16 23:50, Philip Webb wrote:
> 160409 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
>>> I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable :
>>> I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub.
>>> I do use recent hardware, a cutting-edge mac
160409 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
>> I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable :
>> I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub.
>> I do use recent hardware, a cutting-edge machine I built 6 mth ago .
>> When setting it
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
> 160409 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> You use LILO : that means, you don't use UEFI :
>> that means, almost certainly, you don't use recent hardware.
>
> I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable :
> I never see questions re it here, but
On 09/04/16 20:53, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
>> I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable :
>> I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub.
>> I do use recent hardware, a cutting-edge machine I built 6 mth ago .
>> When setti
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
> I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable :
> I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub.
> I do use recent hardware, a cutting-edge machine I built 6 mth ago .
> When setting it up, I suppressed UEFI in the BIOS setti
160409 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> You use LILO : that means, you don't use UEFI :
> that means, almost certainly, you don't use recent hardware.
I've always used Lilo, which is simple + reliable :
I never see questions re it here, but there are many re Grub.
I do use recent hardware, a cutting-e
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 11:09 AM, wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 07:11:31AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
>
>> It was simply a recognition that we were already in a state where
>> booting a system without /usr mounted early can cause problems.
>
> For certain edge cases... yes.
Edge cases? Accord
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 07:11:31AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
>
> An initramfs is just a secondary bootloader for userspace. I almost
> always use them even if I'm just booting a VM with a single partition
> on it. If something goes wrong you can fall back to a shell in the
> initramfs and it is
James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:09:38 -0400
> waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
>
>>> I never really got the mentality that using an initramfs is a
>>> burden.
>> One more piece of software that can go wrong. You have to
>> maintain+configure it; e.g. sync software and library versio
Le 09/04/16 à 17:15, James Le Cuirot a tapoté :
> Errm, have you ever actually used dracut?
>
> dracut --kver 4.5
>
> Wow, that was hard! It requires zero configuration [...]
Sorry. Not true.
> $ emerge -pv dracut
>
> [...]
>
> The following keyword changes are necessary to proceed:
> (see "p
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 5:11:30 PM CEST, William Hubbs wrote:
...
if we don't make it optional we're going to cause some serious headaches
for people who are invested in the current status quo.
...
gen_usr_ldscript is only needed if you are using separate /usr without
an initramfs. This is
On 17:15 Sat 09 Apr, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:09:38 -0400
> waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
>
> > > I never really got the mentality that using an initramfs is a
> > > burden.
> >
> > One more piece of software that can go wrong. You have to
> > maintain+configure it; e.g.
On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:09:38 -0400
waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> > I never really got the mentality that using an initramfs is a
> > burden.
>
> One more piece of software that can go wrong. You have to
> maintain+configure it; e.g. sync software and library versions with
> what's on the res
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 07:11:31AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
> It was simply a recognition that we were already in a state where
> booting a system without /usr mounted early can cause problems.
For certain edge cases... yes. But they were already using initramfs
or merging /usr into /. I'm t
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 12:06:47AM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 4/8/16 11:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Anthony G. Basile
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Alternatively, this may introduce problems. So it seems like we're
> >> fixing something that isn't broken.
> >>
> On Apr 8, 2016, at 8:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:20:24PM -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> Based on what I've read here in the thread, merging /bin and /sbin
>> into /usr/{sbin,bin} is a matter of convenience by putting most of the
>> static parts of a running s
On 09/04/16 14:37, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I've certainly haven't had many problems with dracut. When it fails
> it is usually because I'm doing something ELSE that is off-the-wall
> and it just doesn't have a plugin for it yet. (And in those cases it
> isn't like the kernel tends to get it right w
On 08/04/16 14:55, Rich Freeman wrote:
> The purpose of a /usr merge is to get all the stateless stuff into one place.
beside what you have in /etc ...
usr-merge, in practice just moves early-boot/core tools where the rest
of the userspace lives.
> Some of the ultimate goals include:
> 1. A rea
On 4/9/16 7:16 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 4/9/16 6:56 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Personally, I think our users would be better-served by making it a
>> choice.
>
> Rich, we can bike shed for days. It would just be nice to hear from
> base-layout people whether it will be a choice or not.
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 09/04/16 13:53, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Put the very same stuff in the initramfs? Most initramfs creation
>> scripts should already do this automatically, and with compat symlinks
>> even those that don't probably will still end up doing it
On 09/04/16 13:53, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 05/04/16 03:19, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> Thoughts on any of this?
>>
>> The whole usr-merge moves the problem of putting stuff in / to putting
>> the very same stuff in the initrd when something diff
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 05/04/16 03:19, William Hubbs wrote:
>> Thoughts on any of this?
>
> The whole usr-merge moves the problem of putting stuff in / to putting
> the very same stuff in the initrd when something different from busybox
> (or equivalent) is needed
On 05/04/16 03:19, William Hubbs wrote:
> Thoughts on any of this?
The whole usr-merge moves the problem of putting stuff in / to putting
the very same stuff in the initrd when something different from busybox
(or equivalent) is needed to get the early boot mounting.
Do we have a reliable way to
On 4/9/16 6:56 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Personally, I think our users would be better-served by making it a
> choice.
Rich, we can bike shed for days. It would just be nice to hear from
base-layout people whether it will be a choice or not. We need to know
that so we can plan accordingly.
--
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 1:32 AM, wrote:
>
> now - an arbitrary decree comes down that *EVERYBODY* who wants a
> separate /usr needs to have initramfs.
>
The "decree" wasn't some kind of law that the Gentoo police will come
out to your house and arrest you for violating.
It was simply a recogniti
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 4/8/16 11:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> What problems are you anticipating, especially in light of the fact
>> that many distros actually do it this way already?
>
> RBAC policy files for one. You'll probably break every single har
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:59:09PM -0400, Damien Levac wrote
>
> > Seriously... how many people run Bluetooth keyboards on Gentoo
> > anyways?
>
> That you ask such a question is concerning to me. Are we
> discriminating against normal desktop users now?
Here's the item that really bugs me..
On 4/8/16 11:54 PM, Damien Levac wrote:
>> I personally think sharing /usr over a network and deploying it to
>> multiple machines could be a recipe for disaster.
>
> Uh... it is a nice opinion, but when you are managing 1000+ machines,
> scripting is not cutting it anymore. Obviously we are netwo
On 4/8/16 11:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>>
>> Alternatively, this may introduce problems. So it seems like we're
>> fixing something that isn't broken.
>>
>
> What problems are you anticipating, especially in light of the fact
> that man
> Seriously... how many people run Bluetooth keyboards on Gentoo >anyways?
That you ask such a question is concerning to me. Are we discriminating
against normal desktop users now?
--
Damien Levac
>I personally think sharing /usr over a network and deploying it to
>multiple machines could be a recipe for disaster.
Uh... it is a nice opinion, but when you are managing 1000+ machines,
scripting is not cutting it anymore. Obviously we are network
distributing it. Not that we aren't already suc
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>
> Alternatively, this may introduce problems. So it seems like we're
> fixing something that isn't broken.
>
What problems are you anticipating, especially in light of the fact
that many distros actually do it this way already?
I don't
On 4/8/16 9:36 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:11:48PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> On 4/8/16 8:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is true that we offer a high degree of choice to users, but one of
>>> those choices is not which paths to install binaries and lib
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:11:48PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 4/8/16 8:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> >
> > It is true that we offer a high degree of choice to users, but one of
> > those choices is not which paths to install binaries and libraries
> > into.
>
> I thought vapier was
On 04/08/2016 08:18 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
>
>> Half the reason we don't officially support running without /usr
>> mounted during early boot is that if we actually put everything in /
>> that could conceivably be needed durin
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:30:04PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
> Half the reason we don't officially support running without /usr
> mounted during early boot is that if we actually put everything in /
> that could conceivably be needed during early boot we'd end up with
> everything there. Bluetoot
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:18:58PM -0400, Joseph Booker wrote
>
> From my own experience, it is useful to run "ifconfig" or "mount"
> as a regular user, same as the gimp or firefox commands. Given that
> all the commands you listed are in /usr/bin or /bin, I think I'm
> not the only one. The diff
On 4/8/16 8:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> It is true that we offer a high degree of choice to users, but one of
> those choices is not which paths to install binaries and libraries
> into.
I thought vapier was introducing a switch USE=usr-sep which allowed us
to keep an unmerged /usr, or are
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:20:24PM -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> Based on what I've read here in the thread, merging /bin and /sbin
> into /usr/{sbin,bin} is a matter of convenience by putting most of the
> static parts of a running system into a single path. As mentioned by
> some people, howeve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/08/2016 04:31 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 4/8/16 6:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:42 PM, William Hubbs
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There was a bypo here. "the ebuild" should be upstream. The
>>> default installation locati
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Joseph Booker wrote:
> The difference between "system software" and "regular applications" isn't
> clear-cut.
>
This.
Half the reason we don't officially support running without /usr
mounted during early boot is that if we actually put everything in /
that could c
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:07 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:20:19AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote
> >
> > Here is more info about the split and why it exists. It turns out it hs
> > nothing to do with system admininistration or permissions.
> >
> > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:20:19AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote
>
> Here is more info about the split and why it exists. It turns out it hs
> nothing to do with system admininistration or permissions.
>
> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html
> http://www.osnews.com/s
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:14 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> Being serious though, and playing Devil's Advocate of course, assuming
> you have no use for a desktop manager, etc, hence no need for dbus or
> it's 'friends' and policykit or it's pals, and you're not a "systemd
> fan" etc .. how are we gra
On Friday, April 8, 2016 5:14:42 PM CEST, M. J. Everitt wrote:
On 08/04/16 16:02, Rich Freeman wrote:
The only mandatory component in a linux system, by definition, is the
Linux kernel.
A linux system could consist of nothing but a kernel with
init=/usr/local/bin/hello-world.
Most traditional
On 08/04/16 16:02, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> The only mandatory component in a linux system, by definition, is the
> Linux kernel.
>
> A linux system could consist of nothing but a kernel with
> init=/usr/local/bin/hello-world.
>
> Most traditional linux distros are going to run policykit though. Of
On 08/04/16 16:02, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:33 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>> I'll come back to the links a bit later, but is policykit and its
>> predecessor/derivatives now a mandatory part of a linux system?
>>
> The only mandatory component in a linux system, by definition,
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:33 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> I'll come back to the links a bit later, but is policykit and its
> predecessor/derivatives now a mandatory part of a linux system?
>
The only mandatory component in a linux system, by definition, is the
Linux kernel.
A linux system could c
On 08/04/16 15:20, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:44:06AM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>> 3) I still believe there is merit in distinguishing between binaries
>> that can/should be run as root, and those that can/should not. Those
>> that run as root 100% of the time, or use VMs,
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:44:06AM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> 3) I still believe there is merit in distinguishing between binaries
> that can/should be run as root, and those that can/should not. Those
> that run as root 100% of the time, or use VMs, don't really 'use' linux
> in the original se
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>
> As I'm getting into this thread, I'm looking at debian, fedora and I'll
> add openSUSE. I just don't get why a usr merge is as good as that
> fedora page says.
>
Keep in mind Fedora's purposes here:
1. It is a feeder where experimenta
On 4/8/16 7:41 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 07:31:03 -0400
> "Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
>
>> On 4/8/16 6:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:42 PM, William Hubbs
>>> wrote:
There was a bypo here. "the ebuild" should be upstream. The default
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:41 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 07:31:03 -0400
> "Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
>>
>> @anyone, can you list the reasons we're doing this (I'm sure there's
>> more than one). If systemd if one of them, then I'm confused because
>> debian has switched to sys
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 07:31:03 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 4/8/16 6:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:42 PM, William Hubbs
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> There was a bypo here. "the ebuild" should be upstream. The default
> >> installation location of all coreutils binaries
On 4/8/16 6:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>> There was a bypo here. "the ebuild" should be upstream. The default
>> installation location of all coreutils binaries is /usr/bin, then we
>> move everything around in the ebuild.
>> We are deviati
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:44 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> 2) "Today, a separate /usr partition already must be mounted by the
> initramfs during early boot, thus making the justification for a
> split-off moot." - no, not all gentoo users have an initramfs and
> need/want one .. so this is a false a
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> There was a bypo here. "the ebuild" should be upstream. The default
> installation location of all coreutils binaries is /usr/bin, then we
> move everything around in the ebuild.
> We are deviating from upstream in this example.
>
Keep in m
My personal opinion:
Unless we have a good reason to do otherwise, don't fuck with upstream.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Damien Levac wrote:
>
> > Three points :-
> > 1) systemd - not all gentoo users subscribe to this 'philosophy' .. >but
> >no, I don't want get drawn into debates of yes/n
> Three points :-
> 1) systemd - not all gentoo users subscribe to this 'philosophy' .. >but
>no, I don't want get drawn into debates of yes/no of systemd ..
The article start by saying the points are not just for systemd, even
though the latter might find the merge more 'needed'...
>2) "Today,
On 08/04/16 03:36, Damien Levac wrote:
> Anybody who have this kind of misconception about 'usr merge' should
> read this:
>
> https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/
>
> Signed,
>
> a user who got scared by this thread and documented myself before
> freaking out to
Anybody who have this kind of misconception about 'usr merge' should
read this:
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/
Signed,
a user who got scared by this thread and documented myself before
freaking out too much...
>> Personally I think that merging things i
On 08/04/16 02:42, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:39:07PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 01:18:01PM -0700, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>>> Personally I think that merging things into /usr is a major policy decision
>>> that is likely to contravene upstream ins
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:39:07PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 01:18:01PM -0700, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> > Personally I think that merging things into /usr is a major policy decision
> > that is likely to contravene upstream installation locations. I wouldn't
> > do it
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 01:18:01PM -0700, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> Personally I think that merging things into /usr is a major policy decision
> that is likely to contravene upstream installation locations. I wouldn't
> do it lightly, if at all.
Actually, there are upstreams that already do this
Personally I think that merging things into /usr is a major policy decision
that is likely to contravene upstream installation locations. I wouldn't
do it lightly, if at all.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 2:32 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> > In the
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 2:32 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> In the spirit of hearing arguments for/against .. could someone with the
> appropriate 'fu' throw up a quick survey for those on this ML (and/or
> possibly the g-users?) to indicate a preference for a change to a
> flattened-/usr system?
>
> I
On 07/04/16 17:36, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 6:22:16 PM CEST, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Again, I don't see this as a reason not to make it optional, but I
>> suspect that we will find bugs here from time to time which users who
>> run with the split /usr will have to report/fi
May I suggest first moving everything into /usr one at a time, and for each
file moved out of /bin or /sbin or whatever, replace it with a symlink?
This will allow the /bin and /sbin directories themselves to atomically be
replaced with symlinks later.
Doing it all at once will leave a gap.
For
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 6:22:16 PM CEST, Rich Freeman wrote:
Again, I don't see this as a reason not to make it optional, but I
suspect that we will find bugs here from time to time which users who
run with the split /usr will have to report/fix.
Considering the advantages of usr-merge are
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:12:13AM +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 11:36:09 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote:
> > As for those benefits, they do little for {/usr,}/sbin vs
> > {/usr,}/bin, which is where the incompatibilities tend to live.
> > I encountered one of these in po
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2016, at 3:42 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:15:58 AM CEST, Richard Yao wrote:
>>>
>>> Here are the violations:
>>>
>>> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs-3.0.html#binEssentialUserCommandBinari
On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 11:36:09 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote:
As for those benefits, they do little for {/usr,}/sbin vs
{/usr,}/bin, which is where the incompatibilities tend to live.
I encountered one of these in powertop the other day (patch
pending). The benefits of being able to access t
On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 5:52:52 PM CEST, Richard Yao wrote:
The original purpose of the /usr merge in Solaris was to make managing
updates easier. Redhat realized that and copied it. Copying it too
without doing the enabling work necessary for a rolling distribution
would be setting a trap fo
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:36:09PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>
>
> >> On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:43 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 11:52:52AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> >>> On 04/06/2016 10:58 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> >>> What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr
>> On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:43 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 11:52:52AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2016 10:58 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>>> What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr out of the equation? I
>>> happen to have a few workstations that load thei
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 11:52:52AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 04/06/2016 10:58 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> > What, if any, is the benefit of squashing /usr out of the equation? I
> > happen to have a few workstations that load their /usr off an NFS share
> > presently, with some bodgery-workarou
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
