:: Re: [DNG] encroachment of usr merge
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Rainer Weikusat
To: dng
Subject: Re: [DNG] encroachment of usr merge
Mark Hindley <mark@???> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 08:48:15AM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>> Since Debian seems to be pushing usr merge, I have to ask:
>> Does chimaera need /usr to be on the same partition as / ?
>> Does deadalus need /usr to be on the same partition as / ?
>> Does the next one (whose name will start with e)
>> need /usr to be on the same partition as / ?
>> and
>> Does ceres require /usr tp be on the same partition as / ?
>> I suspect the answer to all these questions is 'no',
>> but I need to know before I upgrade my server from beowulf,
>> which does not have /usr on the same partition as /
> These questions are not the same as usr merge in Debian[1].
> The answer to the specific questions is no, /usr can be a separate partition.
> As far as usr merge itself goes, it is available in Devuan (apt-get install
> usrmerge) but not forced (usrmerge package is not pulled in by
> init-system-helpers and debootstrap does not install it by default).

Worth remarking in this context: The Debian 'usrmerge' implementatation
is seriously braindead because all that's necessary for an actually
merged system is

ln -s /usr /

That would get rid of what Poetterman claimed to be a purely accidental
deficiency of the UNIX filesystem. OTOH, his habit of hard-coding /usr
paths in C programs would then end up being completely meaningless,
hence, this road obviously wasn't taken. Poetterman no like looking