On 06/20/2012 10:47 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:

This leads to have a separately /boot filesystem. In this case I agree
with you: make sense that the kernel is near the bootloader files.

But if /boot has to be in a separate filesystem, which is the point to
support btrfs at all ? Does make sense to support only a subset of btrfs
features ?

Yes, and that's another good reason for /boot: btrfs supports that kind
of policy (e.g. "no compression or encryption in this subtree.")

quoted

quoted

Now we have the possibility to move the kernel near the modules, and
this could lead some interesting possibility: think about different
linux installations, with an own kernel version and an own modules
version; what are the reasons to put together under /boot different
kernel which potential conflicting names ? de facto standard ?
historical reasons ? Nothing wrong here; but also the idea to moving the
kernel under /lib/modules is not so wrong.

No, it is completely, totally and very very seriously wrong.

When a bootloader (and the bioses) will be able to address the whole
diskS, this will change.. Not now

People have said that for 15 years.  The reality is that firmware will
always be behind the curve, and *that's ok*, we just need to deal with it.

	-hpa