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 > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-14-2012, 09:49 PM
Greg KH
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 06:39:05PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> Is this that page?
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
>
> That refers to the systemd website on freedesktop.org.
>
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge

Yes.

> With that said, I have a few questions:
>
> 1. Why does no one mention the enterprise use case at all?

It has been pointed out before, why constantly repeat ourselves.

> 2. Why not make rootfs a NFS mount with a unionfs at the SAN/NAS device?

unionfs is still a "work in progress", some systems can't do that yet.

> 3. Why not let the users choose where these directories go and support
> both locations?

Because a plethera of options is a sure way to make sure that half of
them don't work over the long run.

We aren't Debian here people, we don't support "everything"

If you want to support both, great, feel free to step up and do the
work.

greg k-h
 
Old 03-14-2012, 09:51 PM
Greg KH
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:14:54PM +0000, David Leverton wrote:
> On 14 March 2012 21:04, Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Haveing a separate /usr is wonderful, and once we finish moving /sbin/
> > and /bin/ into /usr/ it makes even more sense. *See the /usr page at
> > fedora for all of the great reasons why this is good.
>
> My point was examine, in detail, whether separate-/usr-with-initramfs
> has any disadvantages compared to separate-/usr-without-initramfs.

Oh, that's simple, separate-/usr-without-initramfs will not work and
will not be supported

Again, the fact that it works for some people today is pure luck, and
odds are, it really isn't, but it's really hard to determine this given
that the init system they are using doesn't provide a good feedback loop
for this type of thing.

Hence, it is not supported.

thanks,

greg k-h
 
Old 03-14-2012, 10:21 PM
David Leverton
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On 14 March 2012 22:51, Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Oh, that's simple, separate-/usr-without-initramfs will not work and
> will not be supported

See, it's this "we're doing it this way because we know best and we
say so" that upsets people. I'm trying to encourage everyone to get
to the core reasons for having a separate /usr in the first place (not
all of which are guaranteed to be mentioned on any specific wiki
page), and logically analyse the potential disadvantages of using an
initramfs in each situation. It may turn out that there are no
disadvantages after all, but the analysis is still important, not only
to make sure that "we"'re making the right decision, but also to
persuade everyone else that it's the right decision.

> Again, the fact that it works for some people today is pure luck, and
> odds are, it really isn't, but it's really hard to determine this given
> that the init system they are using doesn't provide a good feedback loop
> for this type of thing.

Maybe it would be worth improving the init system to do so? Or maybe
it wouldn't because using an initramfs is easier and has no drawbacks,
but see above.
 
Old 03-14-2012, 10:27 PM
Richard Yao
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On 03/14/12 18:49, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 06:39:05PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>> With that said, I have a few questions:
>>
>> 1. Why does no one mention the enterprise use case at all?
>
> It has been pointed out before, why constantly repeat ourselves.

Simple. No one has documented it. A webpage that makes a few vague
references to "enterprise use" does not count as documentation.

I happened to figure it out when trying to rationalize why anyone would
want this, but this is hardly obvious to those that imagine a computer
as a self-sufficient single disk system.

>> 2. Why not make rootfs a NFS mount with a unionfs at the SAN/NAS device?
>
> unionfs is still a "work in progress", some systems can't do that yet.

That sounds like something that needs to be fixed.

>> 3. Why not let the users choose where these directories go and support
>> both locations?
>
> Because a plethera of options is a sure way to make sure that half of
> them don't work over the long run.
>
> We aren't Debian here people, we don't support "everything"

Gentoo provides far more options than Debian does, so this seems
somewhat contradictory to me.


> If you want to support both, great, feel free to step up and do the
> work.

Fair enough, however, I should remind you that not much will happen
without a decision from the Gentoo Council. I am willing to accept
whatever decision they make, but I think that exposing this decision to
users is something that is within our ability to do.

Portage provides use with the ability to do abstractions that other
distributions cannot do, such as permitting people to merge
/usr{bin,lib{32,64,},sbin} into /.
 
Old 03-14-2012, 10:37 PM
Greg KH
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:27:07PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> 3. Why not let the users choose where these directories go and support
> >> both locations?
> >
> > Because a plethera of options is a sure way to make sure that half of
> > them don't work over the long run.
> >
> > We aren't Debian here people, we don't support "everything"
>
> Gentoo provides far more options than Debian does, so this seems
> somewhat contradictory to me.

Not really, I don't think we support systems without udev anymore,
right? And we get away with a lot of these different "options" at
compile time, which makes it easier than what Debian has to handle, so
perhaps it's not a fair comparison.

> > If you want to support both, great, feel free to step up and do the
> > work.
>
> Fair enough, however, I should remind you that not much will happen
> without a decision from the Gentoo Council. I am willing to accept
> whatever decision they make, but I think that exposing this decision to
> users is something that is within our ability to do.

I didn't think the Council ruled on technical questions.

In fact, how is this relevant at all anyway? It's quite simple in that
we don't support systems today with a separate /usr/ without a
initramfs/initrd. If it happens to work, wonderful, but don't expect
Gentoo developers to rewrite the upstream packages to work for this type
of unsupported systems, it's not going to happen.

Or are you referring to the "no more /bin and /sbin" thing? That's just
going to happen "naturally", one day in a few months or years, your
system will have moved to this without you even realizing it

> Portage provides use with the ability to do abstractions that other
> distributions cannot do, such as permitting people to merge
> /usr{bin,lib{32,64,},sbin} into /.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that the packages that are being merged will
actually work

greg k-h
 
Old 03-14-2012, 10:44 PM
Greg KH
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:21:44PM +0000, David Leverton wrote:
> On 14 March 2012 22:51, Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Oh, that's simple, separate-/usr-without-initramfs will not work and
> > will not be supported
>
> See, it's this "we're doing it this way because we know best and we
> say so" that upsets people.

Oh, and somehow "consensus" will work? No, sorry, it will not.

How about the basic FACT that today, such systems do not work, and are
not supported by a wide range of packages we support today.

Yes, some people are "lucky" in that their systems don't have those
packages, but others are not. The simple "I use a bluetooth keyboard"
is one such example.

So it's not a "we know best", it's a "it will not properly work
otherwise."

It is strange to watch people somehow think that if they complain
enough, or feel strongly enough, something is going to change here to
make this basic fact go away.

Now, to get back to what I said before, I'm done with this thread, it's
going nowhere, and it seems I'm just making it worse, my apologies. For
penance, I'll adopt the next abandoned package someone throws at me, any
suggestions?

greg k-h
 
Old 03-14-2012, 10:47 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On 03/14/2012 04:21 PM, David Leverton wrote:
> On 14 March 2012 22:51, Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Oh, that's simple, separate-/usr-without-initramfs will not work and
>> will not be supported
>
> See, it's this "we're doing it this way because we know best and we
> say so" that upsets people.

It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing. What we're
not doing is supporting the "/ is a self-contained boot disk that is
independent of /usr" use case, simply because it's a huge maintenance
burden and it doesn't make much sense in the post-initramfs world. The
people who have a "problem" with this don't understand the burden and
have no intention of taking on the burden themselves. Even if they
wanted to take on the burden, they wouldn't be capable of it. If they
were capable of taking on this burden then they would have already
understood that the initramfs is the most reasonable solution to their
perceived problem.
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 03-14-2012, 10:51 PM
Richard Yao
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On 03/14/12 19:37, Greg KH wrote:
>> Portage provides use with the ability to do abstractions that other
>> distributions cannot do, such as permitting people to merge
>> /usr{bin,lib{32,64,},sbin} into /.
>
> Sure, but that doesn't mean that the packages that are being merged will
> actually work
>
> greg k-h

I proposed a way that this could work with no effort on the part of the
Gentoo developers in one of my earlier emails:

On 03/14/12 17:05, Richard Yao wrote:
> In the meantime, it should be possible to create a global usr USE flag
> that enables/disables gen_usr_ldscript. It would then be possible to
> delete all of the usr ldscripts, dump /usr into / and symlink /usr to /.
> The dynamic linker would go to / before /usr and it would be trivial to
> modify $PATH to ignore /usr entirely. Legacy software that requires
> /usr/{bin,sbin} would still work while those that want a separate /usr
> mount could symlink /usr/{bin,include,libexec,sbin} into their rootfs
> counterparts.
 
Old 03-14-2012, 10:58 PM
Richard Yao
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On 03/14/12 19:44, Greg KH wrote:
> Now, to get back to what I said before, I'm done with this thread, it's
> going nowhere, and it seems I'm just making it worse, my apologies. For
> penance, I'll adopt the next abandoned package someone throws at me, any
> suggestions?

Bug #360513 needs work. Something in sys-boot/grub-0.97-r* is triggering
a bug in the GNU toolchain. Few of us have time to deal with it, so it
would be much appreciated if you would take care of it.
 
Old 03-14-2012, 11:07 PM
Greg KH
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:58:23PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 03/14/12 19:44, Greg KH wrote:
> > Now, to get back to what I said before, I'm done with this thread, it's
> > going nowhere, and it seems I'm just making it worse, my apologies. For
> > penance, I'll adopt the next abandoned package someone throws at me, any
> > suggestions?
>
> Bug #360513 needs work. Something in sys-boot/grub-0.97-r* is triggering
> a bug in the GNU toolchain. Few of us have time to deal with it, so it
> would be much appreciated if you would take care of it.

grub is not an abandoned package, it's as if people don't read what I
write...
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:02 PM.

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