Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jun 02, Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org wrote:
- there is still a close windows in initram, and possibility
at early rc scripts.
No.
- /var is still not mounted, so programs could not write they status, nor
log failures
So programs which have such
On Jun 04, Giacomo Catenazzi c...@debian.org wrote:
Do we really need to handle such hotplugs? We could require that
all boot hardwares must be available short after boot loader. The
later plugged hardware will be shown only later, when the system
in up. I see no disadvantage, and make thing
Ken Bloom kbl...@gmail.com writes:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le lundi 01 juin 2009 à 16:26 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
What has the initramfs got to do with this?
For / to be on LVM you need an initramfs. / on raid (with custom
kernel) or plain partition
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 03:50:50PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Nowadays, you cannot use your system if you don’t use udev, so this is
irrelevant.
I'm writing this mail from a system without udev:
$ cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.6.26-1-vserver-686 (Debian 2.6.26-12)
On Jun 03, Carsten Hey cars...@debian.org wrote:
I'm writing this mail from a system without udev:
Yes, and nobody cares much. Many functions of modern systems require
udev and more and more will with time.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 02:59:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jun 03, Carsten Hey cars...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 03:50:50PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Nowadays, you cannot use your system if you don’t use udev, so this
is irrelevant.
I'm writing this mail
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le lundi 01 juin 2009 à 16:26 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
What has the initramfs got to do with this?
For / to be on LVM you need an initramfs. / on raid (with custom
kernel) or plain partition works without one.
I already know that,
Le lundi 01 juin 2009 à 16:26 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
What has the initramfs got to do with this?
For / to be on LVM you need an initramfs. / on raid (with custom
kernel) or plain partition works without one.
I already know that, thanks, but it still doesn’t make your point.
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [2009-06-02 10:53]:
Le lundi 01 juin 2009 à 16:26 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
What has the initramfs got to do with this?
For / to be on LVM you need an initramfs. / on raid (with custom
kernel) or plain partition works without one.
I
Le mardi 02 juin 2009 à 11:22 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
Still that doesn't mean that the project should depricate support for a
separate /usr for the sake of udev. If some want to use an initramfs
less kernel let them have a functional system, same goes for those that
prefere a udev
Marco d'Itri wrote:
This is relevant for udev becase kernel events can trigger the
execution of programs at the very beginning of the boot when only the
root is mounted.
While currently packages can and do easily implement workarounds for
this situation (like waiting in a loop for the files in
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Le mardi 02 juin 2009 à 11:22 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
Still that doesn't mean that the project should depricate support for a
separate /usr for the sake of udev. If some want to use an initramfs
less kernel let them have a functional system,
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
This is a summary of last month's thread about the feasibility of
removing support for /usr on a standalone filesystem.
The issue was raised by the udev upstream maintainer along with the udev
package maintainers of the major
On Jun 02, Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org wrote:
- there is still a close windows in initram, and possibility
at early rc scripts.
No.
- /var is still not mounted, so programs could not write they status, nor
log failures
So programs which have such requirements need to take care
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 12:54 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
What about those who want a system without libc? Did you think about
them?
Yes, we have uclibc for them.
That's still libc. Would you take ucudev, uchal, and ucinitramfs to go
with
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 19:43 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
All things considered, I have no immediate plan to push for deprecating
a standalone /usr.
Thanks for going back. However, if you think this debate is going to
come back later, maybe we could ensure that we can remove this support
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 19:43 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
All things considered, I have no immediate plan to push for
deprecating a standalone /usr.
Thanks for going back.
Seconded. Thanks also, Marco, for notifying us of this change in
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 19:43 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
All things considered, I have no immediate plan to push for deprecating
a standalone /usr.
Thanks for going back. However, if you think this debate is going to
come back later, maybe we
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 01:11:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
- LVM and/or RAID: no real reason nowadays to not use these for the root
As long as debian does not provide support for kernel independent non
breaking initramfs support (i.e. not
Le lundi 01 juin 2009 à 13:11 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
As long as debian does not provide support for kernel independent non
breaking initramfs support (i.e. not regenerated on every whim and
break) having / outside lvm and no initramfs is a real plus.
What has the initramfs got
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Le lundi 01 juin 2009 à 13:11 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
As long as debian does not provide support for kernel independent non
breaking initramfs support (i.e. not regenerated on every whim and
break) having / outside lvm and no initramfs
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org writes:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 01:11:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
- LVM and/or RAID: no real reason nowadays to not use these for the root
As long as debian does not provide support for kernel
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 05:13:16PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org writes:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 01:11:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
- LVM and/or RAID: no real reason nowadays to not use these
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 19:51 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 19:43 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
All things considered, I have no immediate plan to push for
deprecating a standalone /usr.
Thanks for going back.
Seconded.
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Think again, if I do such a package, I would obviously check with some
kind of trivial perl programm if the device containing /usr/lib/rootkit
is mounted with nodev, would use mount -o remount,dev on the problematic
mount point in the preinst, let
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 03:08:02PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Think again, if I do such a package, I would obviously check with some
kind of trivial perl programm if the device containing /usr/lib/rootkit
is mounted with nodev,
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org writes:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 03:08:02PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Think again, if I do such a package, I would obviously check with some
kind of trivial perl programm if the device containing
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org writes:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 05:13:16PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org writes:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 01:11:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
- LVM and/or
This is a summary of last month's thread about the feasibility of
removing support for /usr on a standalone filesystem.
The issue was raised by the udev upstream maintainer along with the udev
package maintainers of the major distributions, who all agreed that this
configuration is not supported.
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 07:43:00PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
This is a summary of last month's thread about the feasibility of
removing support for /usr on a standalone filesystem.
The issue was raised by the udev upstream maintainer along with the udev
package maintainers of the major
30 matches
Mail list logo
