rawhide report: 20101019 changes

[Peter Jones]

On 10/19/2010 11:15 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:08 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 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.

And it's entirely wrong, Seth.  They're not at another location in this
example.

>>> 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.
> 
> that's not plausible enough, imo. There is clear gain to enough users to
> file a 'number of bugs'.

Presumably because they don't know about the other ways to accomplish the
same goal that aren't as painful to support?

-- 
        Peter