On Thu, 03.03.11 17:39, Pablo Hess ([email protected]) wrote: > > >> Would it work better if /usr was an automounted target? > > > > That would probably blow up in your face, since a lot of programs used > > during early boot end up accessing /usr and would stay stuck > > Aren't /usr/bin and /usr/sbin and /usr/lib supposed to house **only** > binaries and respective libraries that are **not** required for > boot-up? If so, then the right solution would be to move those > required binaries to /bin, /sbin.
Well, that's not the status quo. Quite a few programs install udev rules that refer to binaries, libraries or data file in /usr. And the question is really whether it's worth moving all those files. I.e. do you really want the PCI/USB id databse in /lib? I am don't think so. But really, I feel like I keep repeating myself like a broken record. Please read up this thread, the LWN thread and the README of systemd before keeping asking the same questions over and over again. I do believe everything has already been said on this topic. > Not supporting a separate /usr would be a major setback for systemd, IMO. Why? systemd just warns you. systemd itself works fine with sperate /usr. It's just a statement on the general ecosystem, a statement of fact on the status quo. systemd is just the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger. And even if systemd was actively broken in supporting separate /usr I fail to see how this would constitue a "major setback"... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
