Nuno J. Silva wrote: > On 2012-12-25, Bruce Hill wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 02:10:28PM +0200, Nuno J. Silva wrote: >>> No, actually it doesn't. It just has the same kind of very generic claim >>> that has been repeated several times in this thread (which is "why? >>> because it won't work") and links to an article that explains why some >>> udev rules would silently fail for all this time (for *years* now, I'd >>> guess). >>> >>> The article does not describe a change introduced with 181, it describes >>> what already happened with previous versions. I am not using >= 181 and >>> I do see the issues the article mentions (it does not break here because >>> I do not have a separate /usr, but I can see some rules that use stuff >>> from /usr). >> You have such an obvious lack of understanding, and problem comprehending >> English, we just don't need to post to you anymore. ;) > Please be my guest and explain me in which part of that article is it > said that some behavior *introduced in udev-181* will break systems with > a separate /usr. > >
Quoting from Gentoo news item: root@fireball / # eselect news read 2 2012-03-16-udev-181-unmasking Title udev-181 unmasking Author William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> Posted 2012-03-16 Revision 1 udev-181 is being unmasked on 2012-03-19. This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of udev >=181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr. An initramfs which does this is created by >=sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25.1 or >=sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr. Also, if you are using OpenRC, you must upgrade to >= openrc-0.9.9. For more information on why this has been done, see the following URL: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken root@fireball / # Now are you saying the Gentoo devs are lying to us? Careful now. Could end up on a slippery slope and bump your head. That says anything BEFORE 181 boots fine with a separate /usr, 181 or anything after does not. Simple enough for you yet? I might add, I have ALWAYS had a separate /usr. Darn near a decade now. It has never failed to boot because /usr was on a separate partition. NOT ONCE. Now I am told it is going to fail. Go figure. Go try to tell me that it was broken all these years. Yea, right. That's like telling me the Sun comes up in the west when I can see it doesn't with my own two eyes. Good luck with that. Reminds me of that"tell it to the hand" thing. ROFL Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
