On 28/11/18 at 12:11, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 28/11/2018 à 11:25, Rick Moen a écrit :
>> Quoting Didier Kryn (kryn@???):
>>
>>> Le 28/11/2018 à 08:11, Rick Moen a écrit :
>>>> If I were relying on NFS during early boot, I'd file a bug against
>>>> package
>>>> nfs-common, and also, meanwhile, compile a local-package substitute
>>>> with
>>>> either static binaries or ones linked to libs in /lib (and provide
>>>> those).
>>> Debian supports diskless hosts mounting an NFS filesystem on /.
>> Of course yes.  _But_, what I was commenting on was the dependency on
>> /usr for the NFS mounting utility in /sbin.  That means -- KatolaZ's
>> point -- that /sbin/mount.nfs will not function in the absence of /usr.
>> My answer to KatolaZ amounted to:  Yes, and that's a bug.  I would, if I
>> needed that during early boot (e.g., during maintenance operation, thus
>> needing to be functional even if /usr cannot be mounted), then I would
>> file a bug against mount.nfs and, while awaiting attention to the bug,
>> compile a local replacement.
>>
>>> When using initrd/initramfs, this kernel option is no longer
>>> necessary and I guess it is just simpler to rely on the modules
>>> provided by nfs-common. The motivation is the same as for device
>>> drivers and filesystems: boot a generic kernel, have all modules
>>> available during early boot to mount / (and /usr).
>> But notice that if /usr _is not_ (e.g., cannot be, for some reason)
>> mounted, then you are screwed:  /sbin/mount.nfs breaks.  KatolZ cited
>> that utility's dynamic library dependency on a lib in /usr/lib as a
>> reason why separate /usr is impractical (for systems needing NFS access
>> even if /usr is unavailable).  I replied that, IMO, no, that's a reason
>> why /sbin/mount.nf thus constructed, has a build error.  ;->
>>
>     IIUC, your argument boils down to "depending on /usr for early
> boot is a *bug*", while Roger told us why it has become a *feature* (~:


  Yes, I got it:

From: Roger Leigh <rleigh@???>
Message-ID: <147710ba-7cd8-25e2-1d05-4b0f1589e875@???>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 17:01:07 +0000To: dng@???

"A separate /usr is no different.  It has a very real cost to support"


  That is, since software devs and packagers have been making a mess of
/ and /usr use, dumping everything together in the same bin makes the
whole system easier to deal with.


  To me it's like saying: "Since most people at home have been doing a
poor job at using different closets to store only their own stuff and
each different closet's drawer to put different kinds of clothing, let's
dump together whatever belongs to anyone in a big chest placed in the
middle of the room.  Let's cal this awful mess a feature and voilà! 
Problem solved!"


  Not.


--
Alessandro Selli <alessandroselli@???>
VOIP SIP: dhatarattha@???
Chiave firma e cifratura PGP/GPG signing and encoding key:
BA651E4050DDFC31E17384BABCE7BD1A1B0DF2AE