rawhide report: 20101019 changes

[seth vidal]

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.


> > Additionally, since our software in fedora has a trickle down impact on
> > users in rhel-land I think you'll find that this will have to be done,
> > eventually for them.
> 
> "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?

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.

So it seems like you need to explain why you think /usr should NOT be on
a separate partition.

-sv