FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-07-2011, 11:44 AM
 
Default Red Hat is moving from / to /usr/

On Dec 07, Stephan Seitz <stse+debian@fsing.rootsland.net> wrote:

> Yes, but by the admin, not by Debian, and the admin may not be
> interested in adding a new layer of possible failures, because it
> works.
And other admins may be interested in the important features which
everything-in-usr supports. Who is going to win?

> Well, I think we should do the same we are doing with other packages
> whose upstream uses thinks we don’t want (e.g. /opt or non-free
> files): we patch it so that it fits the Debian way.
This may not be practical in the long run, or even possible.

--
ciao,
Marco
 
Old 12-07-2011, 12:05 PM
Sune Vuorela
 
Default Red Hat is moving from / to /usr/

On 2011-12-07, Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> wrote:
> Personally, I think that resorting to rescue media is something of an
> admission of defeat, but I'm probably a bit odd ;-)

I recent followed a recovery in a irc channel after installing a
wrong-architecture libc on a system. Only access was 2 existing root
consoles.

Recovering involved
- a base64 decoder written in shell
- a statically linked busybox
- overwriting /bin/ln
- /bin/ln /bin/ln /bin/busybox

recovery would have been much faster if a rescue media was available,
but there was several thousands km between the sysadm and the box.

/Sune


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: slrnjdup4m.p7v.nospam@sshway.ssh.pusling.com">http ://lists.debian.org/slrnjdup4m.p7v.nospam@sshway.ssh.pusling.com
 
Old 12-07-2011, 12:13 PM
Stephan Seitz
 
Default Red Hat is moving from / to /usr/

On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 01:44:28PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:

On Dec 07, Stephan Seitz <stse+debian@fsing.rootsland.net> wrote:

Yes, but by the admin, not by Debian, and the admin may not be
interested in adding a new layer of possible failures, because it
works.

And other admins may be interested in the important features which
everything-in-usr supports. Who is going to win?


If this is the future way and the way the developer want to go, then the
way will succeed in time, but as Goswin said, it will take time.


The admins who think the new way is bad will not change their systems.
New admins may think otherwise, and if the old server will be replaced,
they change the system to the new way.


Of course, Redhat admins can be forced to change if they need the new
version for their systems, but at least Debian does not work this way.



Well, I think we should do the same we are doing with other packages
whose upstream uses thinks we don’t want (e.g. /opt or non-free
files): we patch it so that it fits the Debian way.

This may not be practical in the long run, or even possible.


Yes, this may happen, but I think for about ten years we have to support
both ways as best as we can.


Shade and sweet water!

Stephan

--
| Stephan Seitz E-Mail: stse@fsing.rootsland.net |
| PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/pgp.html |
 
Old 12-07-2011, 07:51 PM
Joerg Jaspert
 
Default Red Hat is moving from / to /usr/

On 12687 March 1977, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=12a362be5c1982f80dbfb75bda 070208a2c99cdf
> Discuss.

Nice link, though using https would be oh-so-much-more-secure.
[BLA]

Maybe you should actually deliver some content to discuss and not expect
everyone to be able to read your mind what you want with a random
link. Or expect them to be online all the time they read mail.

--
bye, Joerg
[...]
While Debian is certainly about beer, and in some cases may even be
about free beer, Debian is mainly about free speech.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87fwgwjeb8.fsf@gkar.ganneff.de">http://lists.debian.org/87fwgwjeb8.fsf@gkar.ganneff.de
 
Old 12-08-2011, 08:13 AM
Goswin von Brederlow
 
Default Red Hat is moving from / to /usr/

Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:

> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:00:35 +0000, Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 at 01:43:34 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=12a362be5c1982f80dbfb75bda 070208a2c99cdf
>> >
>> > Discuss.
>>
>> As far as I can make out, their position is that a separate /usr is now only
>> supported if you mount it from the initrd - which to be honest seems a
>> reasonable way to keep existing separate-/usr systems working, without
>> defeating the "/ is small" justification for a separate /usr by gradually
>> migrating more and more of /usr into the root filesystem.
>>
>> It doesn't really address the "/ as recovery system" use of a separate /usr
>> if your root filesystem can't boot unaided, but I'm far from convinced that
>> a separate /usr makes / significantly more reliable, and an entirely
>> separate installation (Debian Live on removable media, or a smaller Debian
>> install in a separate partition that isn't normally even mounted) makes an
>> even more reliable recovery system.
>
> The problem with such rescue partitions is that if anything about your
> setup is peculiar, then they are likely to rot in a way that ensures
> that they will no longer support new features of the installed kernel on
> the machine to be rescued. Likewise, if you've had to build a custom
> kernel to support your hardware, then default rescue media may well not
> help you.
>
> RedHat can probably safely ignore that, because their users are not
> quite as inventive as ours, and they're only really trying to address
> the middle of the bell-curve anyway. That leaves us with
> disproportionately more odd use cases, because they're not being catered
> for by the commercial distros.
>
> Also, as far as I've seen the default method for fixing RedHat systems
> is to pop in a rescue disk (at least when I was an RHCX that was
> certainly the suggested approach in their exams for many of the failure
> modes). If that is the default solution anyway, then making it
> impossible to use other recovery methods is not so much of a leap.
>
> Personally, I think that resorting to rescue media is something of an
> admission of defeat, but I'm probably a bit odd ;-)
>
> I seem to occasionally find myself in situations where the machine
> that's failed is the one that you'd use for downloading or burning the
> rescue media, or for building the custom kernel needed for the hardware,
> so that I'd have real pain if my only solution was getting hold of a
> matching rescue disk. People using ARM seems likely to make this
> situation more likely, as there seem to be way to many flavours of ARM.
>
> Having said all that, it would be nice if we made the default setup
> include a rescue partition, with hooks to ensure that kernels are
> updated on the rescue partition (preferable after the system
> successfully boots with the new kernel, say), and it's generally kept
> happy and ready for use.
>
> Cheers, Phil.

I have a bug open about a grml.deb that adds a grml boot entry to the
systems bootloader. With that you would always have an uptodate live CD.

MfG
Goswin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 8762hr5suz.fsf@frosties.localnet">http://lists.debian.org/8762hr5suz.fsf@frosties.localnet
 
Old 12-08-2011, 08:25 AM
Goswin von Brederlow
 
Default Red Hat is moving from / to /usr/

md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Dec 07, Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Give everyone at least 10 years headstart to migrate existing systems
>> away from having a seperate /usr partition and for people to stop making
>> a seperate /usr on new installs.
> Actually, Red Hat's goal *is* to support a separate /usr, they just want
> to have the initramfs mount it.

I guess mounting /usr is no more complicated than mounting / in
initramfs. Finding out what modules and software is needed for that
should be the same code as for /.

And maybe that would at least give incentive to finally add fsck support
to initramfs. Doing fsck on a mounted filesystem always sucks and you
need to reboot on any change.


Personally I've considered giving up a seperate /usr partition. Since I
switched to Debian kernels (something I actually regretted the last days
because alt-sysrq is bastardised in Debian) the / isn't that small
anymore. And we are finally getting to a point where read-only / works
out-of-the-box so /usr doesn't have to be seperate to be read-only.

> I am not really looking forward to keep reverting these changes in my
> package, and since Red Hat controls most Linux infrastructure now other
> packages will face the same problem.

One more reason to get away from udev.

MfG
Goswin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87y5un4dqk.fsf@frosties.localnet">http://lists.debian.org/87y5un4dqk.fsf@frosties.localnet
 
Old 12-08-2011, 08:40 AM
Goswin von Brederlow
 
Default Red Hat is moving from / to /usr/

Igor Pashev <pashev.igor@gmail.com> writes:

> 07.12.2011 04:43, Marco d'Itri пи?е?:
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=12a362be5c1982f80dbfb75bda 070208a2c99cdf
>>
>> Discuss.
>>
>
> I don't see any reason to move all into /usr from /,
> and make initrd for minimal system:
>
> Making self-contained initrd is the same problem
> as making self-contained /
>
> So why overhead?

One problem for a "minimal" / is that there are so many different setups
there, even more for Debian than for RH, and minimal has so many
different meanings. Because of that more and more stuff has ended up in
/ over the years and it isn't quite so minimal anymore.

The initramfs on the other hand is made to fit. So if /usr isn't on a
networking filesystem (NFS) then you won't get networking stuff in the
initramfs. No raid then mdadm isn't included. No lvm and the initramfs
gets smaller again. And only select modules for one kernel are in
there. Huge space saving again. So an initramfs will/can be minimal.

The initramfs only needs to be self-contained for exactly one use
case. The one where it is building on. The / needs to be self contained
for every crazy setup any Debian user can think of. And initramfs is
configurable by the admin. If something is missing he can add
it. Properly fixing a not self-contained / on the other hand is
difficult.


So I don't agree that making a self-contained / is the same problem as
making a self-contained initramfs.

On the other hand initialy making initramfs support all the crazy things
people do with /usr will be fun.

MfG
Goswin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87ty5b4d0r.fsf@frosties.localnet">http://lists.debian.org/87ty5b4d0r.fsf@frosties.localnet
 
Old 12-08-2011, 09:06 AM
Stephan Seitz
 
Default Red Hat is moving from / to /usr/

On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:25:07AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:

I guess mounting /usr is no more complicated than mounting / in
initramfs. Finding out what modules and software is needed for that
should be the same code as for /.


That depends. I have some systems where all file systems except /boot are
encrypted. Since I don’t use Debian kernels and initramfs, I created
a small one myself to ask for the /-partition password. Now I would have
to put the whole LVM stuff into it, because /usr is on a LVM (/ is not).


So it is more complicated.


One more reason to get away from udev.


Yes, I think too, that udev sucks. Instead of merging / and /usr, udev
should be enhanced to support runlevels (at least the difference between
the early boot stage / single user and the multiuser mode). There is no
need to configure the sound card mixer at the early boot stage, and so
forcing the user to have /usr on the /-partition.


Shade and sweet water!

Stephan

--
| Stephan Seitz E-Mail: stse@fsing.rootsland.net |
| PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/pgp.html |
 
Old 12-08-2011, 10:13 AM
Simon McVittie
 
Default Red Hat is moving from / to /usr/

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 at 11:06:46 +0100, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> That depends. I have some systems where all file systems except
> /boot are encrypted. Since I don’t use Debian kernels and initramfs,
> I created a small one myself to ask for the /-partition password.
> Now I would have to put the whole LVM stuff into it, because /usr is
> on a LVM (/ is not).

Debian's initramfs knows how to do this; d-i can even set it up for you
automatically. (My rootfs is in LVM over an encrypted partition; I believe
putting the stacking the other way round, so you have one or more encrypted
LVs in otherwise-unencrypted LVM, also works.)

Of course, if you decide to replace Debian's kernel/initramfs infrastructure,
the down side of that is that you get to replace Debian's kernel/initramfs
infrastructure...

S


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111208111331.GB23329@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk" >http://lists.debian.org/20111208111331.GB23329@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk
 
Old 12-08-2011, 01:11 PM
Igor Pashev
 
Default Red Hat is moving from / to /usr/

08.12.2011 13:40, Goswin von Brederlow пишет:

Igor Pashev<pashev.igor@gmail.com> writes:


07.12.2011 04:43, Marco d'Itri пишет:

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=12a362be5c1982f80dbfb75bda 070208a2c99cdf

Discuss.



I don't see any reason to move all into /usr from /,
and make initrd for minimal system:

Making self-contained initrd is the same problem
as making self-contained /

So why overhead?


One problem for a "minimal" / is that there are so many different setups
there, even more for Debian than for RH, and minimal has so many
different meanings. Because of that more and more stuff has ended up in
/ over the years and it isn't quite so minimal anymore.

The initramfs on the other hand is made to fit. So if /usr isn't on a
networking filesystem (NFS) then you won't get networking stuff in the
initramfs. No raid then mdadm isn't included. No lvm and the initramfs
gets smaller again. And only select modules for one kernel are in
there. Huge space saving again. So an initramfs will/can be minimal.

The initramfs only needs to be self-contained for exactly one use
case. The one where it is building on. The / needs to be self contained
for every crazy setup any Debian user can think of. And initramfs is
configurable by the admin. If something is missing he can add
it. Properly fixing a not self-contained / on the other hand is
difficult.


So I don't agree that making a self-contained / is the same problem as
making a self-contained initramfs.

On the other hand initialy making initramfs support all the crazy things
people do with /usr will be fun.



Goswin, thanks for the explanation.
Now I'm inclined to move all to /usr :-)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4EE0C591.3040802@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4EE0C591.3040802@gmail.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:52 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org