On Friday 06 August 2010 11:38:01 Guido Berhoerster wrote:
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@suse.de> wrote:
I think that /usr on nfs, or even on a different disk should just get a reality check, and be finally dropped.
Please consider this; From the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS): The Directory Structure /usr /usr has nothing to do with users, but is the acronym for UNIX system resources. The data in /usr is static, read-only data that can be shared among various hosts compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS). This directory contains all application programs and establishes a secondary hierarchy in the file system. KDE4 and GNOME are also located here. /usr holds a number of sub-directories, such as /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/local, and /usr/share/doc. But, if it can't go to a separate partition, it can no longer be shared either.
Having /usr, /var, /opt and /tmp on different partitions / disks is basically a standard setup for lots of real-world corporate installations.
Real World includes more than your laptop or minimal desktop machine. It also includes multi-machine LAN/WAN program and file server installations and if we remove/alter the way openSUSE mangles the way the Directory Structure which is designed to handle big and small installations alike, then what we are saying is that openSUSE is a 'me too', desktop only platform with very limited expansion capabilities and likely not suited in a potential commercial environment.
The people who break such standard setups (or even think about breaking them) all the time should just get a reality check...
Some people have trouble focusing on anything further than the end of their own nose. Linux needs the standards to be adhered to and not arbitrarily changed because it is convenient for lazy programming practices to be effected.
/usr not on the
rootfs is broken since ages for anything that isn't a
simple server. It does not make any sense to do that, and that's why nobody really cares.
If one doesn't see that OS is more than a desktop, then they probably won't. If they can see that a robust OS, compatible with standards that allow for easy UPsizing to large, multi-system installations in a commercial, money producing environment, then they will care. Devs that take the lazy way out hurt their own chances for recognition because the product they produce will by design, have a limited userbase that can't be easily expanded or profited from.
Many things plugging into udev/hotplug break if /usr is not available at early boot. I stopped asking people to fix such things.
Unfortunately an all too common attitude in Linuxland. Anyway, can we then just be honest and officially abandon the now arbitrary /bin /sbin -- /usr/bin /usr/sbin separation by moving stuff and symlinking /bin and /sbin to /usr?
Anything
exercise with
Alas, often true, but when you totally depend on volunteer developers, unpaid, then you get what you pay for, stuff *they* are interested in with the quality *they* feel liking imposing on themselves. Thankfully, many devs do a great job and consider it fun to produce a quality product, but unfortunately, "many" is all too few considered what is "required" to ensure consistency of quality. << WARNING> > like this sounds good to me. It's just a pretty useless this artificial split. I would understand to have 'the
desktop' split out into /usr, but everything else is just crazy. An it
Really think before you say things like that. Maybe alright for a 'tinyNIX' on a laptop, but not for a quality OS.
seems entirely random what we do here today.
The 'maybe needed at boot'
thing just does not mean anything today.
No, it is needed, but not necessarily "there". All that is needed is anything required for the system to boot up to the point where all required file systems and partitions are mounted and programs/data available. That normally would include system libraries, drivers, and any programs or scripts required to finish the boot operations. Everything (like DE's and Desktop Managers, etc) can be put on the moon if a link is/can be established after the boot is complete. Failure to establish those links wouldn't stop the boot, only affect what was unavailable, just like any other disk/resource failure after the boot is complete.
Well how do we
to discuss this further and see if there's any objections? It shouldn't be too much work, most of
get this going, should I open a ticket on openfate the stuff is from
Base:System packages. The symlinks should guarantee backwards compatibility, anything I'm missing here?
Please don't do it for that reason, do it to get the broken non-compliant issues fixed to bring OS back into the most flexible, compliant, expandable, useful, productive, fun platform available. Richard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org