Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Linda Walsh <suse@tlinx.org> wrote:
I stared upgrading to 12.2 -- and all was going fine until I rebooted. Then complete failure -- had to use rescue disk.
Why? Because it's expected that /usr/{s,}bin will be on the root partition (or the same partition as /{s,}bin)
Linda,
For clarity that is NOT expected.
What is expected is that either /usr/{s,}bin is on root
OR that /usr will be mounted by initrd prior to the normal boot scripts etc. kicking in.
Here's one of the first blog posts about it. I believe this was before a decision was made. Note that this was over a year before 12.2 was released:
http://lizards.opensuse.org/2011/08/03/mounting-usr-in-the-initrd/
So the question / bugzilla is why /usr is not mounted in your case.
Greg
One of the issues that was raised in the discussion was that some people boot from their root partition which then mounts everything else. I have no initrd -- and I never saw this solution proposed on this (as someone else calls it, "development discussion" list -- and they thought this wasn't a development issue?). If everything "fits" on an initrd, they why not leave it on root? For that matter, if the user has no initrd, why not convert initrd's "bin files", into an rpm that would go into /bin (or additional dirs on a rootfs). More importantly -- WHY move the files to /usr/bin anyway? Was this JUST to ensure /usr/bin HAD to be mounted before system startup -- JUST for systemd? I asked this before -- and never got an answer. Microsoft uses a systemd control process to launch all of it's services and load drivers. Why would I want to move to such an opaque process that when it breaks (which too often), is impossible to crack open and debug/fix on line or in reasonable time? It can't be performance -- I have heard that mentioned as a reason -- but Windows takes over twice as long or more to get to a user-prompt (or desktop) as linux does. I.e. the current startup in linux with init-scripts is easily 2x the systemd-model's speed. When the init scripts boot up and do not run long-delaying scripts (that windows often runs in background and still is slower! ;-)), we are talking about 40-50 seconds for boot of a server with ~50TB of storage, running bind/sendmail/samba/IMAP, squid, ssh, spamd, and many more. But that's all a side issue. Why did the files have to be moved -- I have had several rpm-build's fail because the specs had hard-coded paths for the utils when the links either weren't there yet, or were maybe using moved-programs that links had not been provided for (dunno.. copied all of the linked files from /usr/bin back to bin and the libblck to get back to a working system -- a hack, I admit, but I was more interested in getting back to working at the time than anything else. I can't see why soft links were not placed in /usr/bin and pointed to in /bin, -- that would have been completely safe and backwards compat -- /usr/bin files could only be referenced after root was loaded -- making it safe. While having /bin point to /usr means when /usr doesn't load or fsck -- you can't come up in single user -- it also breaks booting from the hard disk -- neither of which is very reliable. Is there a reason why they can't live on /bin and have the links on /usr? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org