On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 2:31 PM, pk wrote:
>> On 2013-09-30 00:04, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>>> It's the general idea that you can leave /usr unmounted until some
>>> random arb time later in the startup sequence and just expect things to
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 2:31 PM, pk wrote:
> On 2013-09-30 00:04, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> It's the general idea that you can leave /usr unmounted until some
>> random arb time later in the startup sequence and just expect things to
>> work out fine that is broken.
>>
>> It just happened to work
Am 01.10.2013 01:21, schrieb Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike):
> El 30/09/13 00:47, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió:
>> Am 29.09.2013 18:41, schrieb Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike):
>>> El 29/09/13 18:03, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió:
Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbur
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> (klondike) wrote:
Ohh and BTW, /usr was not just added because someone added a harddrive,
in most cases it was used to allow machines contain a very small system
>
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
>>> Ohh and BTW, /usr was not just added because someone added a harddrive,
>>> in most cases it was used to allow machines contain a very small system
>>> on / which was enough to just boot and mount a networked syst
El 30/09/13 00:47, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió:
> Am 29.09.2013 18:41, schrieb Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike):
>> El 29/09/13 18:03, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió:
>>> Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury:
On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> things
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:05:39 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > If *something1* at boot time requires access to *something2* at boot
> > time that isn't available then I would say that *something1* is broken
> > by design not the *something2*.
>
> What about the case where *something2* *USED TO BE
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:40:45PM +0200, pk wrote
> If *something1* at boot time requires access to *something2* at boot
> time that isn't available then I would say that *something1* is broken
> by design not the *something2*.
What about the case where *something2* *USED TO BE AVAILABLE, BUT
On 2013-09-30 09:32, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I never mentioned /var at all.
>
> Go back and read again what I did write.
I'm quite aware what you wrote. If you only read what I wrote... English
is not my native language but the word *may* surely cannot be
misunderstood? Ok, I'll make it simple:
On 30/09/2013 08:31, pk wrote:
> On 2013-09-30 00:04, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> It's the general idea that you can leave /usr unmounted until some
>> random arb time later in the startup sequence and just expect things to
>> work out fine that is broken.
>>
>> It just happened to work OK for years
On 2013-09-30 00:04, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> It's the general idea that you can leave /usr unmounted until some
> random arb time later in the startup sequence and just expect things to
> work out fine that is broken.
>
> It just happened to work OK for years because nothing happened to use
> the
Am 29.09.2013 18:41, schrieb Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike):
> El 29/09/13 18:03, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió:
>> Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury:
>>> On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>>
things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd,
On 29/09/2013 23:41, Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 29/09/2013 18:33, Dale wrote:
that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news.
> And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are
> not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 29/09/2013 18:33, Dale wrote:
>>> that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news.
And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are
not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes.
>> If not, then what was it
On 29/09/2013 18:33, Dale wrote:
>> that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news.
>> > And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are
>> > not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes.
> If not, then what was it? You seem to know what
On 2013-09-29 11:12 AM, Greg Woodbury wrote:
It is truly layable at the feet of the GNOME folks, the breakage of the
root and usr filesystem separability is all derived from the GNOME camp.
Thanks for the excellent summary... and this explains a lot...
It also doesn't surpise me, given my ext
El 29/09/13 18:03, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió:
> Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury:
>> On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>
>>> things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not
>>> the root cause of the problem.
>>>
>>> The problems were caused
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury:
>> On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>
>>> things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not
>>> the root cause of the problem.
>>>
>>> The problems were caused by people saying that
Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury:
> On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
>> things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not
>> the root cause of the problem.
>>
>> The problems were caused by people saying that seperate /usr was a good
>> idea, so
19 matches
Mail list logo
