Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:09:03PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Fri, 25.02.11 13:35, Adam Spragg (a...@spra.gg) wrote: On Friday 25 Feb 2011 13:00:51 Andrey Borzenkov wrote: Commit http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/commit/?id=80758717a6359cbe6048f43a17c 2b53a3ca8c2fa declared separate /usr unsupported. What is really the reason for it? This does seem odd. Might I also point out... From http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEROOTFILESYSTEM To boot a system, enough must be present on the root partition to mount other filesystems. This includes utilities, configuration, boot loader information, and other essential start-up data. /usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other partitions or filesystems. Well, turns out no distro really follows the spec here, do they? Hmmm ... AFAIK we do. If things do not work, then it has to be fixed as we have users/customers around definitely use this feature. I think this is mostly wishful thinking by some folks who wrote the FHS, and does not describe what really is. As FHS specs are part of the LSB, all Enterprise prooducts should follow the FHS. Werner -- Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool. -- Edward Burr ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 16:04, Dr. Werner Fink wer...@suse.de wrote: On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:09:03PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Fri, 25.02.11 13:35, Adam Spragg (a...@spra.gg) wrote: On Friday 25 Feb 2011 13:00:51 Andrey Borzenkov wrote: Commit http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/commit/?id=80758717a6359cbe6048f43a17c 2b53a3ca8c2fa declared separate /usr unsupported. What is really the reason for it? This does seem odd. Might I also point out... From http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEROOTFILESYSTEM To boot a system, enough must be present on the root partition to mount other filesystems. This includes utilities, configuration, boot loader information, and other essential start-up data. /usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other partitions or filesystems. Well, turns out no distro really follows the spec here, do they? Hmmm ... AFAIK we do. If things do not work, then it has to be fixed as we have users/customers around definitely use this feature. I doubt anybody will be able to fix all the issues. These customers need to copy /usr to the rootfs if they want a supported system running systemd. I think this is mostly wishful thinking by some folks who wrote the FHS, and does not describe what really is. As FHS specs are part of the LSB, all Enterprise prooducts should follow the FHS. LSB documents practice and can not dictate anything. Most distros do not care much what's written there. We are about to change some of the practice now, and I guess LSB needs to be updated. :) Kay ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:18:16PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 16:04, Dr. Werner Fink wer...@suse.de wrote: Hmmm ... AFAIK we do. If things do not work, then it has to be fixed as we have users/customers around definitely use this feature. I doubt anybody will be able to fix all the issues. These customers need to copy /usr to the rootfs if they want a supported system running systemd. Those customers have payed for support including this feature and some of them exactly for this feature. I'm not going to ignore this hard requirement for snugness. If it is not possible for systemd to fulfille the LSB spec systemd is not ready for Enterprise products. It has to be possible to fulfill FHS not only in theory but in practice. That is that if an network interface has to up for the NFS share /usr then systemd should support this. I think this is mostly wishful thinking by some folks who wrote the FHS, and does not describe what really is. As FHS specs are part of the LSB, all Enterprise prooducts should follow the FHS. LSB documents practice and can not dictate anything. Most distros do not care much what's written there. As already told, this is wrong. We are about to change some of the practice now, and I guess LSB needs to be updated. :) You may try it. Now let us see what happens. Werner -- Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool. -- Edward Burr ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Mon, 07.03.11 16:04, Dr. Werner Fink (wer...@suse.de) wrote: On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:09:03PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Fri, 25.02.11 13:35, Adam Spragg (a...@spra.gg) wrote: On Friday 25 Feb 2011 13:00:51 Andrey Borzenkov wrote: Commit http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/commit/?id=80758717a6359cbe6048f43a17c 2b53a3ca8c2fa declared separate /usr unsupported. What is really the reason for it? This does seem odd. Might I also point out... From http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEROOTFILESYSTEM To boot a system, enough must be present on the root partition to mount other filesystems. This includes utilities, configuration, boot loader information, and other essential start-up data. /usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other partitions or filesystems. Well, turns out no distro really follows the spec here, do they? Hmmm ... AFAIK we do. If things do not work, then it has to be fixed as we have users/customers around definitely use this feature. Well, as a matter of fact this is not where we are right now and I doubt it is worth fixing this. And I do think this text answers all questions you might have: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken I think this is mostly wishful thinking by some folks who wrote the FHS, and does not describe what really is. As FHS specs are part of the LSB, all Enterprise prooducts should follow the FHS. I doubt any really do. At least RHEL doesn't and SLES neither. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:50:16PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 16:44, Dr. Werner Fink wer...@suse.de wrote: Those customers have payed for support including this feature and some of them exactly for this feature. I'm not going to ignore this hard requirement for snugness. If it is not possible for systemd to fulfille the LSB spec systemd is not ready for Enterprise products. It has to be possible to fulfill FHS not only in theory but in practice. That is that if an network interface has to up for the NFS share /usr then systemd should support this. The 1000ths time: it has nothing to do with systemd, and it fails today already in many setups, also with sysv. As I'm the maintainer of sysvinit here, I'd like to know which setup fails. I think this is mostly wishful thinking by some folks who wrote the FHS, and does not describe what really is. As FHS specs are part of the LSB, all Enterprise prooducts should follow the FHS. LSB documents practice and can not dictate anything. Most distros do not care much what's written there. As already told, this is wrong. LSB means nothing for many distros, and you can tell it wrong, but it will not change anything. Hmmm ... AFAIK RedHat has not left the Linux Foundation, does this mean that RedHat will ignore the results of the LSB working group? We are about to change some of the practice now, and I guess LSB needs to be updated. :) You may try it. Now let us see what happens. What will happen is that /usr will be on the rootfs. :) All joking apart, I'd like to see some generic support within systemd for partitions as specified in FHS ;) Werner -- Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool. -- Edward Burr ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Mon, 07.03.11 16:44, Dr. Werner Fink (wer...@suse.de) wrote: On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:18:16PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 16:04, Dr. Werner Fink wer...@suse.de wrote: Hmmm ... AFAIK we do. If things do not work, then it has to be fixed as we have users/customers around definitely use this feature. I doubt anybody will be able to fix all the issues. These customers need to copy /usr to the rootfs if they want a supported system running systemd. Those customers have payed for support including this feature and some of them exactly for this feature. I'm not going to ignore this hard requirement for snugness. If it is not possible for systemd to fulfille the LSB spec systemd is not ready for Enterprise products. Well, systemd doesn't have any issues with /usr split off. Really, just read http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken and then please stop complaining! Thank you! Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 17:14, Dr. Werner Fink wer...@suse.de wrote: On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:50:16PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 16:44, Dr. Werner Fink wer...@suse.de wrote: Those customers have payed for support including this feature and some of them exactly for this feature. I'm not going to ignore this hard requirement for snugness. If it is not possible for systemd to fulfille the LSB spec systemd is not ready for Enterprise products. It has to be possible to fulfill FHS not only in theory but in practice. That is that if an network interface has to up for the NFS share /usr then systemd should support this. The 1000ths time: it has nothing to do with systemd, and it fails today already in many setups, also with sysv. As I'm the maintainer of sysvinit here, I'd like to know which setup fails. I think this is mostly wishful thinking by some folks who wrote the FHS, and does not describe what really is. As FHS specs are part of the LSB, all Enterprise prooducts should follow the FHS. LSB documents practice and can not dictate anything. Most distros do not care much what's written there. As already told, this is wrong. LSB means nothing for many distros, and you can tell it wrong, but it will not change anything. Hmmm ... AFAIK RedHat has not left the Linux Foundation, does this mean that RedHat will ignore the results of the LSB working group? We are about to change some of the practice now, and I guess LSB needs to be updated. :) You may try it. Now let us see what happens. What will happen is that /usr will be on the rootfs. :) All joking apart, I'd like to see some generic support within systemd for partitions as specified in FHS ;) It surely fully does, just like sysv. It just fails the same way as sysv, and unlike sysv, it does mention the misconfiguration of the system for todays setups to syslog. Please check what all this is about before stating anything like missing generic support. Thanks, Kay ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Mon, 07.03.11 17:14, Dr. Werner Fink (wer...@suse.de) wrote: It has to be possible to fulfill FHS not only in theory but in practice. That is that if an network interface has to up for the NFS share /usr then systemd should support this. The 1000ths time: it has nothing to do with systemd, and it fails today already in many setups, also with sysv. As I'm the maintainer of sysvinit here, I'd like to know which setup fails. Doesn't have to do much with sysvinit. LSB means nothing for many distros, and you can tell it wrong, but it will not change anything. Hmmm ... AFAIK RedHat has not left the Linux Foundation, does this mean that RedHat will ignore the results of the LSB working group? Fedora has never been following the LSB really, stuff like libexec does not exist in LSB/FHS, but does in Fedora. And on Fedora LSB headers in init scripts always have been the exception not the rule. What will happen is that /usr will be on the rootfs. :) All joking apart, I'd like to see some generic support within systemd for partitions as specified in FHS ;) systemd has no problems with a split off /usr. Stop asking for this, because it's already there. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
]] Lennart Poettering Hi, | But it's a promise you are making there that you cannot keep. If you | want to support /usr on a separate partition then you'd need to do all | the work and move the PCI and USB databases to /, move libatasmart, | fix udisks, fix D-Bus and so on. I leave that to those who care about a separate /usr. Personally, I'd rather see the whole thing replace by a symlink to /. :-) | The least you should do is add a warning about this to your release | notes. I'll forward that to the people responsible for the release notes. | The fact that most these things fail relatively gracefully should not | mislead you to believe that everything worked fine. Things still fail, | just not in a big gigantic atomic explosion scenario. Would it work better if /usr was an automounted target? Cheers, -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 06:45:21PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Thu, 03.03.11 17:58, Tollef Fog Heen (tfh...@err.no) wrote: ]] Lennart Poettering | To boot a system, enough must be present on the root partition to | mount other filesystems. This includes utilities, configuration, | boot loader information, and other essential start-up data. /usr, | /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other | partitions or filesystems. | | Well, turns out no distro really follows the spec here, do they? Given the number of Debian people I see running with separate /usr, I believe it works just fine there and while it's a supported configuration I'll patch the warning out of the Debian systemd packages, at least. Well, it's of course up to you guys what you do there. But it's a promise you are making there that you cannot keep. If you want to support /usr on a separate partition then you'd need to do all the work and move the PCI and USB databases to /, move libatasmart, fix udisks, fix D-Bus and so on. The fact that most these things fail relatively gracefully should not mislead you to believe that everything worked fine. Things still fail, just not in a big gigantic atomic explosion scenario. I don't get it. What during the boot (before /usr is mounted) require pci.db, usb ids, why udisks would be started? I understand that full desktop session need access to those, but we are talking about short window before starting system and mounting /usr. What will break? Are the some udev rules needing mapping between PCI ID and a name? Anything else? (BTW, “yum remove libatasmart” suggest removal of udisks, nautilus, gvfs, evolution and some GNOME parts. Nothing related to boot). -- Tomasz Torcz 72-| 80-| xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl 72-| 80-| ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Thu, 03.03.11 19:42, Tollef Fog Heen (tfh...@err.no) wrote: ]] Tomasz Torcz | I don't get it. What during the boot (before /usr is mounted) require pci.db, | usb ids, why udisks would be started? udev rules that reference the name rather than the USB/PCI vendor or product ID is an example. They're uncommon, but they might exist. They are not so uncommon. I am pretty sure most Linux machines have at least a couple since NM, MM, PA, GCM (at least) use them. Grep for pci-db and usb-db in /lib/udev/rules.d/*. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Thu, 03.03.11 19:21, Tomasz Torcz (to...@pipebreaker.pl) wrote: But it's a promise you are making there that you cannot keep. If you want to support /usr on a separate partition then you'd need to do all the work and move the PCI and USB databases to /, move libatasmart, fix udisks, fix D-Bus and so on. The fact that most these things fail relatively gracefully should not mislead you to believe that everything worked fine. Things still fail, just not in a big gigantic atomic explosion scenario. I don't get it. What during the boot (before /usr is mounted) require pci.db, usb ids, why udisks would be started? I understand that full desktop session need access to those, but we are talking about short window before starting system and mounting /usr. What will break? Are the some udev rules needing mapping between PCI ID and a name? Anything else? Well, udisks needs some rules inudev to be run to check if smart and similar things are available. If that fails tehn udisks will not be able to offer you support for these features. I mean, again, things mostly fail gracefully. If you consider graceful failure a synomym for hey, this works perfectly, then well, be my guest... ;-) Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 05:39:03PM -0300, Pablo Hess wrote: Not supporting a separate /usr would be a major setback for systemd, IMO. Separate /usr has nothing to do with systemd. It just the way current distribution work. Systemd is just a messenger, don't shot it because of friendly reminder. -- Tomasz Torcz 72-| 80-| xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl 72-| 80-| ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Thu, 03.03.11 17:39, Pablo Hess (natunobi...@gentoobr.org) wrote: Would it work better if /usr was an automounted target? That would probably blow up in your face, since a lot of programs used during early boot end up accessing /usr and would stay stuck Aren't /usr/bin and /usr/sbin and /usr/lib supposed to house **only** binaries and respective libraries that are **not** required for boot-up? If so, then the right solution would be to move those required binaries to /bin, /sbin. Well, that's not the status quo. Quite a few programs install udev rules that refer to binaries, libraries or data file in /usr. And the question is really whether it's worth moving all those files. I.e. do you really want the PCI/USB id databse in /lib? I am don't think so. But really, I feel like I keep repeating myself like a broken record. Please read up this thread, the LWN thread and the README of systemd before keeping asking the same questions over and over again. I do believe everything has already been said on this topic. Not supporting a separate /usr would be a major setback for systemd, IMO. Why? systemd just warns you. systemd itself works fine with sperate /usr. It's just a statement on the general ecosystem, a statement of fact on the status quo. systemd is just the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger. And even if systemd was actively broken in supporting separate /usr I fail to see how this would constitue a major setback... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:51:52PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: Why? systemd just warns you. systemd itself works fine with sperate /usr. It's just a statement on the general ecosystem, a statement of fact on the status quo. systemd is just the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger. If systemd works fine and you'll continue to commit to making it not be part of the problem, I don't see why it *should* be the messenger. There's plenty of ways in which I can seriously misconfigure my system that I don't expect systemd to warn me about. Basically all you are doing is asking for people to yell at you. :) -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Fri, 25.02.11 13:35, Adam Spragg (a...@spra.gg) wrote: On Friday 25 Feb 2011 13:00:51 Andrey Borzenkov wrote: Commit http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/commit/?id=80758717a6359cbe6048f43a17c 2b53a3ca8c2fa declared separate /usr unsupported. What is really the reason for it? This does seem odd. Might I also point out... From http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEROOTFILESYSTEM To boot a system, enough must be present on the root partition to mount other filesystems. This includes utilities, configuration, boot loader information, and other essential start-up data. /usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other partitions or filesystems. Well, turns out no distro really follows the spec here, do they? I think this is mostly wishful thinking by some folks who wrote the FHS, and does not describe what really is. Are there any bug reports that lead to this decision? No idea, but given that there are probably a fair few systems out there which currently have a separate /usr, I predict quite a few bug reports because of this change... There is no change here. All we added is a warning about something that was already broken. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Fri, 25.02.11 16:00, Andrey Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote: Commit http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/commit/?id=80758717a6359cbe6048f43a17c2b53a3ca8c2fa declared separate /usr unsupported. What is really the reason for it? It's just acknowledgment of the status quo. And most upstream projects which are currently borked on /usr have no plans to fix that, because they don't consider that a bug. And all we do is to warn the user about it. Are there any bug reports that lead to this decision? There's no decision here. It's just a warning. What are existing systems supposed to do on update? Complete reformatting and reinstall? Well, it hasn't been working correctly in ages. It's really not new policy we came up with here. It's just a warning to the user that setups like this will break. End of story. Also see the README in systemd git about this. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 04:23:27PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: Well, it hasn't been working correctly in ages. It's really not new policy we came up with here. It's just a warning to the user that setups like this will break. End of story. Is this flagged for the Fedora 15 release notes? -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Friday 25 Feb 2011 13:00:51 Andrey Borzenkov wrote: Commit http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/commit/?id=80758717a6359cbe6048f43a17c 2b53a3ca8c2fa declared separate /usr unsupported. What is really the reason for it? This does seem odd. Might I also point out... From http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEROOTFILESYSTEM To boot a system, enough must be present on the root partition to mount other filesystems. This includes utilities, configuration, boot loader information, and other essential start-up data. /usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other partitions or filesystems. From http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY /usr is the second major section of the filesystem. /usr is shareable, read- only data. That means that /usr should be shareable between various FHS- compliant hosts and must not be written to. Are there any bug reports that lead to this decision? No idea, but given that there are probably a fair few systems out there which currently have a separate /usr, I predict quite a few bug reports because of this change... Regards, Adam ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 01:35:14PM +, Adam Spragg wrote: Are there any bug reports that lead to this decision? No idea, but given that there are probably a fair few systems out there which currently have a separate /usr, I predict quite a few bug reports because of this change... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=644868 This was fixed, and since then it seems to have been working fine on my test system with this configuration. -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) said: On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 04:23:27PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: Well, it hasn't been working correctly in ages. It's really not new policy we came up with here. It's just a warning to the user that setups like this will break. End of story. Is this flagged for the Fedora 15 release notes? Speaking as a non-systemd maintainer, IMO: - Issues that arise with separate /usr should likely be fixed - It is still not recommended, and should be discouraged. Note that this is the case where both / and /usr are still local filesystems. I'm perfectly willing to declare local-/ and network-/usr unsupported, becuase, really, just netboot your system. Bill ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
Kay Sievers (kay.siev...@vrfy.org) said: Well, it hasn't been working correctly in ages. It's really not new policy we came up with here. It's just a warning to the user that setups like this will break. End of story. Is this flagged for the Fedora 15 release notes? Speaking as a non-systemd maintainer, IMO: - Issues that arise with separate /usr should likely be fixed D-Bus has its config there, we rely on D-Bus, so this would be the first thing to fix. Unless this is done, the warning is really useful. It's more like a taint flag that tells you are on your own here than anything else. This only matters if systemd relies on dbus, or a dbus-activated service, to bring up local-fs.target. If it doesn't, it's not an issue. Bill ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 20:12, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote: Kay Sievers (kay.siev...@vrfy.org) said: Well, it hasn't been working correctly in ages. It's really not new policy we came up with here. It's just a warning to the user that setups like this will break. End of story. Is this flagged for the Fedora 15 release notes? Speaking as a non-systemd maintainer, IMO: - Issues that arise with separate /usr should likely be fixed D-Bus has its config there, we rely on D-Bus, so this would be the first thing to fix. Unless this is done, the warning is really useful. It's more like a taint flag that tells you are on your own here than anything else. This only matters if systemd relies on dbus, or a dbus-activated service, to bring up local-fs.target. If it doesn't, it's not an issue. That's right today, but the use of D-Bus is growing. And I'm not even sure that we currently handle the D-Bus daemon startup with an empty /usr properly. And there should really no rule like: You can't use a service requiring D-Bus in basic.target -- that would just be the wrong message. The most prominent /usr failure in udev land is unconfigured audio and 3G network cards. And the usual response is: I don't need that.. :) While all that might be true, an empty /usr on bootup is just something that nobody wants to fix, and nobody wants to debug. I'm seeing that for many years now, and I finally gave up on it. We should just make it clear that this isn't properly supported, unless someone is willing to fix all the issues, which I think will never happen. Kay ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
2011/2/25 Kay Sievers kay.siev...@vrfy.org: On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 20:12, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote: Kay Sievers (kay.siev...@vrfy.org) said: Well, it hasn't been working correctly in ages. It's really not new policy we came up with here. It's just a warning to the user that setups like this will break. End of story. Is this flagged for the Fedora 15 release notes? Speaking as a non-systemd maintainer, IMO: - Issues that arise with separate /usr should likely be fixed D-Bus has its config there, we rely on D-Bus, so this would be the first thing to fix. Unless this is done, the warning is really useful. It's more like a taint flag that tells you are on your own here than anything else. This only matters if systemd relies on dbus, or a dbus-activated service, to bring up local-fs.target. If it doesn't, it's not an issue. That's right today, but the use of D-Bus is growing. And I'm not even sure that we currently handle the D-Bus daemon startup with an empty /usr properly. I talked to Keybuk about this and he told me that dbus should handle this case (/usr not being available) rather gracefully. What doesn't work is dbus activation, when /usr is not available. But dbus-daemon will recheck /usr/share/dbus-1 on every activation request, so as soon as /usr becomes available it should behave as normal. What is more of a problem is machine-id living in /var/lib, so currently you can't start dbus-daemon earlier before local-fs.target anyway, as /var being on a separate partition is quite a common setup. Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Fri, 25.02.11 13:09, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote: Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) said: On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 04:23:27PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: Well, it hasn't been working correctly in ages. It's really not new policy we came up with here. It's just a warning to the user that setups like this will break. End of story. Is this flagged for the Fedora 15 release notes? Speaking as a non-systemd maintainer, IMO: - Issues that arise with separate /usr should likely be fixed This is not really how we are handling things on Fedora right now. As far as I know there have never been attempts to move all the deps of udisks and the pci/usb database to /, have there? And to be frank, I really wouldn't want to move those, anyway. Sure, in theory one could fix all those packages. But that would mean a whole boatload of things would have to move to /. I think it is simpler to just give up on seperate /usr, since there is really no good reason to split it off anyway. Folks who want to do ro /usr are aiming too low, they should go for ro /. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 08:41:11PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: really no good reason to split it off anyway. Folks who want to do ro /usr are aiming too low, they should go for ro /. As I noted on the fedora-devel list, that's actually a functional reason for wanting a separate /usr: It'd be nice to support a separate /usr in this case as well, because changes to /etc are usually a different use-case than changes to /usr -- the former is administrator configuration actions, and the latter almost exclusively package updates, installations, or removals. (Installing packages may or may not also entail changes to /etc, of course.) -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 08:37:47PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: Is this flagged for the Fedora 15 release notes? Why would it? It's just a statement of fact, as a warning. Thinks like Because to my knowledge it's never been said before, and if the project wants to draw a line in the sand and make that declaration, it should be officially said somewhere. -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
