[arch-general] /usr is not mounted. This is not supported.
dschauer at gmail.com
Mon Oct 24 10:42:18 EDT 2011
I've been using Arch Linux for about 4 years now. I have it on a few
important systems at work and it has been doing very well.
This morning I saw "/usr is not mounted. This is not supported." in my
boot up after a recent rc.sysinit update.
What is this, bait and switch? I've been running Linux and BSD systems
since 1996 and typically always have /usr in a separate partition (as
well as /var, /home/ and /tmp, but lately been using a ram /tmp).
Why does /usr even exist if it can't be on a separate partition? Why
not just combine /usr/lib and /lib? And /usr/bin and /bin? And
/usr/sbin and /sbin? Why have the distinction at all if it can't be on
I understand that historically that /usr often use to be on different
drive, and that is not really an issue nowadays. Only this year have I
started not putting /usr into separate partitions because I've been
making thumbdrive installs, and did not really see any benefit to
making so many partitions (automatically created anyways, with a
custom install script).
Does this "/usr is not mounted. This is not supported." mean I'm going
to have to eventually fix (dump/fix/restore) all my systems that are
now currently running fine (and that I and others are depending on at
my work) because Arch Linux no longer supports /usr on a different
partition (due to rc.sysinit failing, not just printing an error
message)? I run Arch Linux on more than 10 systems, and about 6 or 7
of those are at work (where Arch has been working out very well).
I'm not looking forward to redoing all these systems that are running
fine if this is where Arch is headed and rc.sysinit is not fixed to
take out this new requirement.
I know this a bit of a rant, but this "/usr is not mounted. This is
not supported." error message is definitely not getting this day off
to a good start...
Definitely not wanting to give up Arch for such a simple issue....
More information about the arch-general