:: Re: [DNG] /usr to merge or not to m…
Etusivu
Poista viesti
Vastaa
Lähettäjä: Hendrik Boom
Päiväys:  
Vastaanottaja: dng
Aihe: Re: [DNG] /usr to merge or not to merge... that is the question
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:45:25PM +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 02:25:20AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Or you can tinker with the initscripts. Or you can also use another
> distribution. Or Linux From Scratch. Or whatever you like :) We all
> could do that, and let Debian/Devuan go to hell. My computing would
> actually be just fine with OpenBSD...
>
> Unfortunately, most of this thread has been just about "oh look how
> cool MY setup is, oh I went around that, oh I tried this and that, oh
> I want to have /var on a tmpfs, oh I mount /usr over NFS and you
> should try it as well..." and so on and so forth.
>
> IMHO, this is mostly out of scope, and does not help Devuan improving
> by a single bit. I understand it's hard to appreciate for most of us,
> but putting together a distro is not about catering for the needs of
> just one user: there is an entire world of possibilities outside :)


The discussion just points out that flexibility is important, and
reminds us to be cautious in rulling out plausible ways of organising a
system.

This comes up every time our upstream looks like it's going to become
restrictive in one way or another.

But I agree that we do have to focus our efforts carefully -- we
don't have the resources to do otherwise.

I hope this kind of discussion also helps us decide how to
allocate those resources.

-- hendrik