On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:03:50AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > /usr is frequently given different mount options (like noatime, for > > > example) or mounted readonly to prevent unnecessary writes to the > > > system. > > > > That doesn't require it to be a separate partition. > > Mounting the location meaningfully as a readonly does. If you're doing > it for security reasons. It doesn't. You can make it a read-only bind mount. > > "We have to support it because users want it" is a poor argument. We > > have to understand why people want it to be a separate partition and > > then decide whether the simplest way (in terms of overall engineering > > effort) to support those desires is by supporting it as a separate > > partition. So far nobody's come up with a terribly plausible reason for > > why /usr should be separate. > > I'm confused here - why is it we have to come up with a plausible > reason? Why is the burden of proof on KEEPING /usr as a separatable > partition? Because it takes more engineering effort to keep it as a separate partition, as evidenced by the number of bugs that keep appearing that are only triggered by this niche usecase. > If I said tomorrow "yum will not support feature foo or bar" that have > been in rpm and yum since the dawn of time I'd have to defend my > rationale for that change. If yum removed features that provided functionality that could be achieved via other means, and in return various other features worked better, I'd be fine with that. > So it seems like you need to explain why you think /usr should NOT be on > a separate partition. Because it adds additional complexity for no obvious gain. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
