On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:15:02AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:08 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > It doesn't. You can make it a read-only bind mount. > > If the files are still read-write at another location then something > iterating over disks/locations can still find it. > > That's what I meant by meaningfully. So do this at the top of init. It's still better than having /usr be entirely separate. > > 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. > > > Hmm, So when this was broken a lot of bugs were triggered? > > Sure seems like if a lot of bugs are being triggered then it is NOT a > niche usecase. > > You can't have it both ways. Very few people do it. When they do, lots of things break. It's kind of like trying to run Fedora under the NetBSD Linux emulation. Nobody does it, but if they did they'd find that a surprising quantity of code wouldn't work. > > 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. > > It's not clear to me that other features work better in the case you're > describing and it will mean retooling for what sounds like a good number > of users. Every Fedora update requires significant retooling. The fact that these bugs exist indicates that there would be advantages to not supporting this, providing that in return we can satisfy all the existing user requirements. "/usr is a separate partition" is *not* a meaningful user requirement, any more than "Fedora release names must start with a consonant". If we can provide better and more generalisable solutions for their requirements then that's a win for everyone. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
