[Mageia-dev] Please test: initscripts+systemd in updates_testing

Colin Guthrie mageia at colin.guthr.ie
Tue Nov 1 19:08:40 CET 2011

'Twas brillig, and Johnny A. Solbu at 01/11/11 17:25 did gyre and gimble:
> On Tuesday 01 November 2011 13:24, Michael Scherer wrote:
>> I suggest to re-read the other mails of the thread, especially the
>> one where I give this url : 
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-devel/msg158642.html
> I have read the entire thread on the Fedora list, every message,
> including that specific message, and I have done the same for this
> thread here and my question is not answered.

I'm afraid it's quite apparent that you've not read them well enough as
the questions you are asking clearly point to a misunderstanding about
the issue.

I've laboured this specific point you've missed in four of my messages
on list this and even quoted certain sections of the systemd wiki that
clearly outline it too. Thomas also initially misunderstood and then
realised the situation is really not that bad. I suggest you read
Thomas' latest messages on this thread and hopefully you'll see the
point I seem to have immense trouble getting across to people.

> So I'll ask again: what substantial benefit do I get by having / and
> usr on the same filesystem / partition? I can agree to some extend on
> moving /*bin and co. to /usr, But what is the benefit on requireing
> /usr NOT to be a separate filesystem?

OK, so this is a reasonable question to ask, BUT, the fact that you are
asking this question suggest that you believe that having a separate
partition for /usr will somehow be banned or impossible in the future.
As Nicolas pointed out in his reply, this is NOT the case!

You can have /usr on a separate partition if you like, it's just that it
will NOT be the job of init (i.e. pid 1) to mount it for you. When init
starts it must already be mounted. This means mounting has to happen
inside the initramfs.

> Judging by this thread and the Fedora thread I am not alone on having
> seriosus doubts on this issiue.

There is a huge amount of misunderstanding on the issue. It takes
several emails to try and patiently explain to people that the violent
reaction they had is based on a misunderstanding of the problem and of
the solution. This is clearly shown in your replies here. Again: there
is no statement that says /usr cannot be on a separate partition.

Of course for simpler systems (most desktops and laptops) there is also
no specific gain or need to have it separate (I've very deliberately NOT
kept it separate on any laptop/desktop installed in the last 5 years
there just is not any practical advantage). So many people will indeed
be advocating that user don't do it if they do not have any specific,
special need to do so.

>> ( PS: please try to not insult others with saying thing like "most 
>> stupid thing ever performed" ).
> I'm sorry if someone feel trampled upon, but when I see something
> which I really do think is stupid and idiotic, I reserve the right to
> say so. If someone can't handle that, tough luck!

This is really not about "handling it" or otherwise. It's about the
atmosphere of of the discussion on the topic. The choice of wording or
the "tone" used in conversation can convey a distinct feeling of
disrespect or derision towards colleagues who take the time to document
the issues clearly and try and drive things forward. This is compounded
when people do not actually grasp the fundamentals of the problem or
appreciate the solutions fully. Then a cycle starts because when people
are told they are wrong (because they've clearly misunderstood, not
because their concern is invalid), they get MORE defensive and thus the
tone gets even worse and things spiral into flames and trolls. So please
do re-read the latest mails on the topic in this thread and try to
appreciate that you will ultimately still be allowed to have /usr on a
separate partition if you like.

> Note: I am not, nor have I called anyone stupid or an idiot. I am
> calling this filesystem requirement change stupid and idiotic.
> There's a difference. :-)=

And again, there is not a "filesystem requirement change", there is just
a "responsibility for who mounts that filesystem change".



Colin Guthrie

Day Job:
  Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/
Open Source:
  Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/
  PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/
  Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/

More information about the Mageia-dev mailing list