On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 19:52:13 +0100
Irrwahn <irrwahn@???> wrote:

> Steve Litt wrote on 16.11.18 18:17:
> > On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:34:05 +0100
> > Irrwahn <irrwahn@???> wrote:
> >
> >> I cast my vote in favor of making merged /usr the default.
> [...]
> >> Split /usr is an abomination that should have been put to rest long
> >> ago, only to be referred to as quirky anecdote in some obscure
> >> footnote. Merging /usr back is a small step on the long way to
> >> restore the FSH to what it was meant to be.
> >
> > Wait a minute. You and I are talking about two different things, so
> > perhaps I should ask what the "/usr merge" really is.
> >
> > Urban, you seem to be against having both a /usr/bin and a /bin.
> > Personally, I don't care about that.
>
> Steve,
>
> since we're having this discussion in the light of Debian making (or
> at least planning to make) merged /usr the default selection in the
> next stable version installer, I guess we should consult the FAQ that
> comes with the `usrmerge´ package in Debian, c.f.:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/md/usrmerge/raw/master/debian/README.Debian
>
> Excerpt:
>
> | * What is the purpose of this package?
> | The usrmerge package will convert the system it is installed on to
> the | everything-in-usr directories scheme, i.e. the /{bin,sbin,lib}/
> directories | become symbolic links to /usr/{bin,sbin,lib}/.
> | [...]
>
> | * Will usrmerge also merge /usr/bin/ and /usr/sbin/?
> | No.
>
> | * Does this require systemd?
> | No.
>
> | * Does this really not require systemd?
> | Yes, I promise.

Note the answer about initramfs below, and note that systemd and their
crew could easily monopolize initramfs makers. Note that dracut is
already built around Redhat owned udev.

>
> | * Does this require an initramfs?
> | Only if /usr is on a standalone file system.

Which is exactly what I said.

>
> So, bin and sbin will stay separate, but /bin, /sbin and /lib will
> get merged into, and replaced by symlinks to, their counterparts
> in /usr.

Which means if /usr is a mountpoint, you need an initramfs, which was
the basis of my objection.


[snip]

> > But the minute somebody combines /sbin with /usr/bin or /usr/sbin,
> > everything I said in my previous post becomes true.
>
> Only if you insist on mounting /usr separately from /.

A heck of a lot of people insist on a separate partition mounted
as /usr, and for them this requires an initramfs, which might become a
problem like udev or netword, etc, in the future.

Now personally, my root partition is on an ssd, and it includes /usr so
all my /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, etc, come straight off SSD at
lightning speed. I like it like that. But a lot of people want /usr to
be mounted.

[snip remarks about tiny diskspace requiring the split: That's not the
source of my objection.]

SteveT

Steve Litt
November 2018 featured book: Manager's Guide to Technical
Troubleshooting Brand new, second edition
http://www.troubleshooters.com/mgr