On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:55:57 -0500
John Morris <jmorris@???> wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 16:41 +0200, Antony Stone wrote:
>
> > https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/
> > if you want to start feeling annoyed as well as surprised.
>
> Dunno, that one actually makes a lot of sense. Applying the logic of
> Chesterton's Fence here seems sound. They did their homework in
> researching the original reason for the tradition, carefully examined
> the question of whether those reasons still apply and the consequences
> of the change.

And then they ignored the original reasons, and spewed talking points.


>
> The original reason no longer applies, we should all agree on that
> point, right?

Not in the slightest. I'd love to boot without initramfs, which is a
black box that's hard to look around in. If I want to mount /usr on a
non root partition, and not use an initramfs, I'd need to actually
prepopulate /sbin and /bin, which would later get mounted over.

Think initramfs systems are cheap and easy? Making a working one
manually is tough: I've done it. And even using tools like dracut and
initramfs-tools is difficult and error prone.

You haven't lived until your boot fails in initramfs. Good luck trying
to get a voltmeter probe anywhere to measure. You're lucky to have a
virtual terminal to work with, and most of your Linux tools aren't
available.

> We don't NEED to install on a small volume and then
> mount the large stuff on a different media, even when we install /usr
> on a different filesystem it is almost always a partition on the same
> physical device.

I haven't seen statistics on this.

> So then we only have the question of whether it is
> best to put everything down /usr or eliminate it. The arguments they
> advance for snapshotting, using a read-only mount or network share of
> pretty much the entire non-host specific portion of the OS is a pretty
> good reason to pick putting everything down /usr. Counterarguments
> are few.
>
> If you don't want to use an initrd, just avoid making /usr a
> mountpoint.

If you say so.

> As for rescue, in the before time when the /usr split
> occurred, cheap live CD/USB stick rescue media was not an option. It
> is now.

In
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/,
take a look at myth 10: Split without initramfs hasn't worked for some
time. The supply a link at
https://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/,
which lists the software that hasn't worked with split and sans
initramfs for a long time. It reads like a who's-who of
freedesktop/systemd/redhat software. Of course it hasn't worked: They
broke it.

Note myth 9. In "debunking" that myth, they state that Fedora's root
partition is bloated. Well of course it is: It's fedora.

Look carefully at myth 5 and its rebuttal. They make the point that
although the split might make life harder on distributions and
upstreams, once the majority of distributions and upstreams have
adopted it, maintaining the merge will be less difficult than not
maintaining the merge in a world of merged systems. Read it very
carefully: What they really say in that paragraph is "we've sabotaged
everyone."

I've got bigger fish to fry, but don't ever think Freedesktop.Org did
us a favor with the merge, or that they didn't do it out of a
redhat-centric agenda.

SteveT

Steve Litt
June 2017 featured book: The Key to Everyday Excellence
http://www.troubleshooters.com/key