On 2011-10-24 17:42, Dwight Schauer wrote:
This morning I saw "/usr is not mounted. This is not supported." in my boot up after a recent rc.sysinit update. What is this, bait and switch? I've been running Linux and BSD systems since 1996 and typically always have /usr in a separate partition (as well as /var, /home/ and /tmp, but lately been using a ram /tmp).
See <http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken> for an explanation on why booting without a separate /usr does not really work, as well as this thread <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/1337>.
Note I said "booting". If /usr is mounted by your initramfs, it's perfectly fine.
Why does /usr even exist if it can't be on a separate partition? Why not just combine /usr/lib and /lib? And /usr/bin and /bin? And /usr/sbin and /sbin? Why have the distinction at all if it can't be on separate partition?
I remember reading a few mailing list posts about this, but can't find them right now. <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/3480> appears to be relevant -- it's easier to snapshot a single /usr than /bin+/lib+/sbin+...:
| The point is not to have 6-10 top-level dirs for the system to manage, | but only a single one. We need a single point to snapshot or share. -- Mantas M.
