Why bootc doesn’t require “/usr merge”
Why bootc doesn’t require “/usr merge”
The systemd docs talk about UsrMerge, and while bootc works nicely with this, it does not require it and never will. In this blog we’ll touch on the rationale for that a bit. The first stumbling bl…Colin Walters
Nanook
in reply to petsoi • •Linux reshared this.
Goingdown
in reply to petsoi • • •Blog makes valid point, but why on earth there would be any current Linux distribution without usr merge?
EDIT: Especially when every major Linux distributions have already implemented usr merge long time ago.
PureTryOut
in reply to Goingdown • • •like this
Badabinski likes this.
nyan
in reply to Goingdown • • •nous
in reply to petsoi • • •I don't get it? They seem to be arguing in favor of bootc over systemd because bootc supports both split /usr and /usr merge? But systemd is the same. There is really nothing in systemd that requires it one way or another even in the linked post about systemd it says:
I don't really get his points for it either. Basically boils down to they don't like mutable root filesystem becuase the symlinks are so load bearing... but most distros before use merge had writable /bin anyway and nothing is stopping you from mounting the root fs as read-only in a usr merge distro.
And their main argument /opt and similar don't follow /usr merge as well as things like docker. But /opt is just a dumping ground for things that don't fir the file hierarchy and docker containers you can do what you want - like any package really nothing needs to follow the unix filesystem hierarchy. I don't get what any of that has to do with bootc nor /usr merge at all.