Considering that I really thought about stripping that one because
otherwise people will not even notice the other page of results.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
01-04-2012, 03:33 PM
Fabian Groffen
rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On 04-01-2012 16:37:34 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > And this part was not about the movement to /usr at all, so why do you
> > suggest another movement here? And while you answer that, please also
> > tell us, why you want to migrate packages to a different install
> > location without a need.
>
> Because we need to finally be able to fix mistakes made in the past
> by other people.
What mistakes?
> > They install and work fine, so just keep it this way. I did not see
> > any argument to move packages around, that work well and have no
> > issue with their current install location.
>
> What if, say, upstream introduces pkg-config file where our hacks will
> cause it to be installed into /lib/pkgconfig? Should we then expand
> the hack to cover that, and something else, and then another thing...
Highly unlikely, but if it happens, easy to fix, so not really a
convincing issue.
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
01-04-2012, 03:47 PM
Michał Górny
rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:33:15 +0100
Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 04-01-2012 16:37:34 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > And this part was not about the movement to /usr at all, so why
> > > do you suggest another movement here? And while you answer that,
> > > please also tell us, why you want to migrate packages to a
> > > different install location without a need.
> >
> > Because we need to finally be able to fix mistakes made in the past
> > by other people.
>
> What mistakes?
The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule
of thumb which becomes more and more blurry over time, and hacking
packages just to make it work.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
01-04-2012, 04:12 PM
Ulrich Mueller
rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
>> What mistakes?
> The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
> thumb which becomes more and more blurry over time, and hacking
> packages just to make it work.
There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation.
The FHS has a nice definition: "The contents of the root filesystem
must be adequate to boot, restore, recover, and/or repair the system."
Ulrich
01-04-2012, 04:32 PM
Olivier Crête
rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 18:12 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> >> What mistakes?
>
> > The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
> > thumb which becomes more and more blurry over time, and hacking
> > packages just to make it work.
>
> There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation.
> The FHS has a nice definition: "The contents of the root filesystem
> must be adequate to boot, restore, recover, and/or repair the system."
The problem is that to boot a modern system, you need a shitload of
stuff. For example, modern network filesystems often have secure
authentication and probably LDAP too, so that means we need to move ldap
and openssl into / and all the dependencies. Also, anything that
installs a udev rule needs to be in /, and the list goes on an on. Very
soon, you have almost everything in /...
This rule made sense in the 80s, but it doesn't match the modern world
anymore.
Some longer explanations:
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
Here is a list of packages on your system that will break if you start
udev without /usr mounted:
On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 15:54 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:51:12 +0100
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > /bin/systemctl
> > libdbus-1.so.3 => /usr/lib64/libdbus-1.so.3
>
> Here is a prime example of why "vertical integration" should really be
> called "a horrible mess of tight coupling"...
You clearly have failed to realize that d-bus is a now the bus for
system messaging and is as much part of the system as syslog or bash.
Probably even more so, for example, in Fedora 17, you'll be able to boot
without syslog or bash, but you need d-bus.
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:40:10 -0500
Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 15:54 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:51:12 +0100
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > /bin/systemctl
> > > libdbus-1.so.3 => /usr/lib64/libdbus-1.so.3
> >
> > Here is a prime example of why "vertical integration" should really
> > be called "a horrible mess of tight coupling"...
>
> You clearly have failed to realize that d-bus is a now the bus for
> system messaging and is as much part of the system as syslog or bash.
> Probably even more so, for example, in Fedora 17, you'll be able to
> boot without syslog or bash, but you need d-bus.
No, I realise full well that some GnomeOS developers would like us to
think that HAL, D-BUS, network-manager, udev-extras etc are part of the
system, and are sloppily writing code that makes that assumption.
However, the question ultimately under discussion is whether Gentoo is
to be a Linux distribution or a GnomeOS distribution.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
01-04-2012, 05:16 PM
"Robin H. Johnson"
rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 03:19:57PM +0000, Steven J Long wrote:
> I could swear we were told in prior discussions on this list that a separate
> /usr partition is not considered supported by upstream udev, but searching
> all I can find is that an initramfs is required.[1]
The upstream statement was more specifically that: starting udev (or
systemd) without /usr available was not considered supported.
If /usr is on a separate partition, this is forcing us down the
initramfs route (If fsck ends up on /usr, the only way to fsck /usr is
from an extra copy in the initramfs...).
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
01-04-2012, 05:26 PM
Marc Schiffbauer
rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
* Olivier Crête schrieb am 04.01.12 um 18:32 Uhr:
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 18:12 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > >> What mistakes?
> >
> > > The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
> > > thumb which becomes more and more blurry over time, and hacking
> > > packages just to make it work.
> >
> > There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation.
> > The FHS has a nice definition: "The contents of the root filesystem
> > must be adequate to boot, restore, recover, and/or repair the system."
>
> The problem is that to boot a modern system, you need a shitload of
> stuff.
To boot the system on its highest level: yes. But Linux/UNIX systems
have a concept called runlevels that can perfectly cover cases where
this "shitload of stuff" is not required.
For example, to make that FHS definition be reality there are (can
be) runlevels that will only boot a system with all basic stuff
required to mount the rootfs and make root being able to login to
the local text console. These are the things that make a unixoid
system valuable over other kind of systems.
> For example, modern network filesystems often have secure
> authentication and probably LDAP too, so that means we need to move ldap
> and openssl into / and all the dependencies. Also, anything that
> installs a udev rule needs to be in /, and the list goes on an on. Very
> soon, you have almost everything in /...
You do not need everything to make a system boot some sort of
recovery-console for example.
>
> This rule made sense in the 80s, but it doesn't match the modern world
> anymore.
Why? The benefits to keep a system bootable and repairable is one of
the reasons why unix systems are more robust or can better be
repeaired than, lets say windows systems for example.
I do not like the idea to throw away all those benefits just because
so many (younger/newer) people do not know about the possibilities
an "old fashioned" unix system tends to have.
rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
