[gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Hi, I've been looking for simple method to create a simple initramfs to just mount the /usr partition. I've found http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Basic_initramfs_used_to_check_and_mount_/usr which didn't work for me. So, I've modified it, see http://www.igpm.rwth-aachen.de/jarausch/Temp/InitRAMFS/ The last lines of the file 'script_init.sh' are # == end doing stuff mount -o remount,rw /mnt/root ### WHY are cp /proc/mounts /mnt/root/mtab### these two lines necessary # clean up. The init process will remount proc sys and dev later umount /proc umount /sys # umount /dev # fails, since it's automounted by the kernel # switch to the real root and execute init exec switch_root /mnt/root /sbin/init $@ I first tried this with the lines marked by '###' removed. This worked on one machine but not on another one. There I got 'Remounting root filesystem read/write failed' 'mount: / not mounted or bad option' If I replace line 26 of /etc/init.d/root (openrc-0.9.9.3) mount -n -o remount,rw / by mount /dev/root -n -o remount,rw / it works, as well, i.e. without the two marked lines above. The first mount command finds the mount options in /etc/mtab . Why are the marked lines above necessary on only one of two machines (both of which run the same version of openrc)? Many thanks for a hint, Helmut.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Line-In input doesn't get forwarded as output
On Tue 27 Mar 2012 08:05:42 AM IST, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 26/03/12 15:54, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: Hi, I upgraded to gentoo-sources 3.3, but it seems there's either a bug or feature in the kernel. ALSA doesn't seem to forward line-in input to the output, while the same happens with gentoo-sources 3.2.11. Anybody else facing this issue? If it's a feature, how to disable it? alsamixer. Okay, I did check that before posting message to the list, but now it is working. The Channels was set to 4 in alsamixer, I made it 2. -- Nilesh Govindarajan http://nileshgr.com
[gentoo-user] vlc jitter / timing problem
Hello,
I'm using cvlc for streaming television data from /dev/video0 (on a x64 dual
xeon system with 16GB RAM). I'm using a Hauppauge HVR 1900 with the unstable
branche and self-build 3.2.11 kernel. The device /dev/video0 is created and if
I run cat /dev/video0 x.mpg the stream of the video device is saved and is
shown
without any sync problems. IMHO the hardware / kernel works fine.
Now I try to send a multicast stream with the cvlc device (in some test I'm
using a http stream) to the netwerok (gigabit) with:
su tv -c /usr/bin/cvlc pvr:///dev/video0 --ttl 1 --sout
'#std{access=http,dest=192.168.20.1:8080,mux=ts}'
After running the command the error:
[0x6bfa68] main input error: ES_OUT_SET_(GROUP_)PCR is called too late
(pts_delay increased to 2329 ms)
[0x6bfa68] main input error: ES_OUT_RESET_PCR called
is shown. I have build vlc with this options aac avcodec avformat dts dvbpsi
elibc_glibc encode ffmpeg gcrypt httpd mmx mp3 mpeg ncurses ogg postproc pvr
rtsp sse swscale udev v4l vlm x264 xcb (other are disabled)
If I change the http to a multicast stream or try to send a h264 stream the
problem is also shown. I can not received any data on a network client,
streaming data are received, but video / audio are not in sync and the video
signal are create sync problems or the movie runs sometimes faster and other
times slower.
Does anyone have got an idea how I can solve the problem. I'm using at the
moment VLC media player 2.0.0 Twoflower (revision 2.0.0-0-g421a4fc)
Thanks
Phil
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Initramfs or move /usr to /, oh my...
On Mon, March 19, 2012 1:31 am, Pandu Poluan wrote: When I started administering remote servers, Citrix's XenServer is Good Enough⢠to deploy in production, so now it's the first thing I install on a virgin box, even if said virgin box will host only one VM. This provides me with a usable Virtual Console through which I can watch the boot process. These things are soo usefull :) That's one of the reasons why I have decided to only get servers with remote-desktop-over-network support in hardware :) I don't want to leave a screen and keyboard connected to machines that are supposed to run independently. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On 3/27/2012 6:36 AM, Helmut Jarausch wrote: Hi, I've been looking for simple method to create a simple initramfs to just mount the /usr partition. I've found http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Basic_initramfs_used_to_check_and_mount_/usr If this is all you need, I recommend you use dracut. The default installation (no use-flags or optional modules) will product an initramfs that loads whatever you current rootfs and /usr partitions are. I've been working on updating the wiki with more detailed instructions; for your case what's there now ought to be plenty: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Dracut
[gentoo-user] Minor questions: binutils-apple upgrade; pango; geany; etc.
I've been working with Gentoo Prefix/Portage on a Mac Powerbook G4 for the past few weeks, and other than a few minor glitches easily rectified, I'm extremely happy with the way it works and works well. I do have a few minor questions concerning the appearance of updates to ebuilds, as well as how gentoo determines what is available to my system/what needs upgrading 1) I installed portage according to the bootstrap instructions, setting binutils-apple to version 3.2 (now 3.2.6) according to my version of XCode. Nonetheless, doing a world update pretend run always gives me this: Code: [ebuild NS] sys-devel/binutils-apple-4.2 [3.2.6] USE=-lto -test 4.2 won't install as it is not compatible (if I understand correctly from the bootstrap instructions); and 3.2.6 is installed with flags one-shot and no-deps Is there a way to tell Portage not to attempt to upgrade here? 2) I've posted in the Multimedia item on the forums board about a certain problem I had with Pango, a known issue that is fixed with pango-1.29.5. I have read up on making my own overlays, but I'm wondering if there is a way to request an addition to the tree, or expedite such an addition? I'd rather for now rely on Portage than to get into my own interventions here. 3) This brings me to the next question, which is: Geany for Mac OSX is available in other package managers, but is completely missing from the Gentoo tree; --search brings up nothing at all. I imagine I can install it, but I'm wondering first whether again it is possible to request that it be added to the Gentoo tree? Thanks for any and all assistance!
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Mike Edenfield kut...@kutulu.org wrote: On 3/27/2012 6:36 AM, Helmut Jarausch wrote: Hi, I've been looking for simple method to create a simple initramfs to just mount the /usr partition. I've found http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Basic_initramfs_used_to_check_and_mount_/usr If this is all you need, I recommend you use dracut. The default installation (no use-flags or optional modules) will product an initramfs that loads whatever you current rootfs and /usr partitions are. I've been working on updating the wiki with more detailed instructions; for your case what's there now ought to be plenty: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Dracut Dracut is masked on ~amd64. Bugs me, as I'd rather use something like that than genkernel (I very much like building my own kernels; it helps me keep things lean, and keeps me familiar with the capabilities of current and future systems). But now I have to find time to learn how to use Genkernel. If we're going to be shoved into tight space like this, I'd be nice if the you can just use $x tools work on stable. I've got three previously-working systems at home I can't risk rebooting right now because of this udev+/usr nonsense. I almost invariably put /usr and /home on top of LVM, RAID or both. -- :wq
[gentoo-user] After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
Hello, Gentoo. I've been thinking about the problem of the conflation of every executable into /usr. If /usr isn't on /, the system can't boot without special preperations. Nothing new here. The method usually discussed is to copy the booting software into an initramfs on a partition other than /usr, and use this to mount /usr. My question: what, technically, prevents me from copying the booting software instead to /sbin and booting the system that way? -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Re: [gentoo-user] Minor questions: binutils-apple upgrade; pango; geany; etc.
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:26:12 -0400 Daniel Ibn Zayd daniel.ibnz...@inquisitor.com wrote: I've been working with Gentoo Prefix/Portage on a Mac Powerbook G4 for the past few weeks, and other than a few minor glitches easily rectified, I'm extremely happy with the way it works and works well. I do have a few minor questions concerning the appearance of updates to ebuilds, as well as how gentoo determines what is available to my system/what needs upgrading 1) I installed portage according to the bootstrap instructions, setting binutils-apple to version 3.2 (now 3.2.6) according to my version of XCode. Nonetheless, doing a world update pretend run always gives me this: Code: [ebuild NS] sys-devel/binutils-apple-4.2 [3.2.6] USE=-lto -test 4.2 won't install as it is not compatible (if I understand correctly from the bootstrap instructions); and 3.2.6 is installed with flags one-shot and no-deps Is there a way to tell Portage not to attempt to upgrade here? It wants to install into a new SLOT, which is different from a mere upgrade. A SLOT is a range of version that can live happily with other versions of the same software in different SLOTS (they usually go into different directory prefixes or have files with different names so there's no conflict). You want to mask the entire SLOT=4, this should do it: echo sys-devel/binutils-apple:4 /etc/portage/package.mask Adapt as necessary if you use a mask directory rather than a single file 2) I've posted in the Multimedia item on the forums board about a certain problem I had with Pango, a known issue that is fixed with pango-1.29.5. I have read up on making my own overlays, but I'm wondering if there is a way to request an addition to the tree, or expedite such an addition? I'd rather for now rely on Portage than to get into my own interventions here. Log a version-bump request at http://bugs.gentoo.org 3) This brings me to the next question, which is: Geany for Mac OSX is available in other package managers, but is completely missing from the Gentoo tree; --search brings up nothing at all. I imagine I can install it, but I'm wondering first whether again it is possible to request that it be added to the Gentoo tree? File a bug at bugs.gentoo.org. This is different from a version bump above in that if no-one feels like maintaining it, it simply won't happen. Mention in your bug that you are a newbie and not up to scratch on maintaining ebuilds yet. if the software installs just fine with the usual ./configure make make install that will increase the odds of a dev making an ebuild, so you should mention this if it's the case. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Minor questions: binutils-apple upgrade; pango; geany; etc.
Daniel Ibn Zayd writes:
1) I installed portage according to the bootstrap instructions, setting
binutils-apple to version 3.2 (now 3.2.6) according to my version of
XCode. Nonetheless, doing a world update pretend run always gives me
this:
Code:
[ebuild NS] sys-devel/binutils-apple-4.2 [3.2.6] USE=-lto -test
4.2 won't install as it is not compatible (if I understand correctly
from the bootstrap instructions); and 3.2.6 is installed with flags
one-shot and no-deps
Is there a way to tell Portage not to attempt to upgrade here?
Looks to me this is not an upgrade, but a second install of this package,
in addition to the existing one. The 'NS' says this package is new, and
slotted, if it were an upgrade only, the 'S' would be an 'U'. Add the -t
(or --tree) option to emerge, this can tell you what package pulls in the
new version.
You can mask the new version by putting
=sys-devel/binutils-apple-4.2
into /etc/portage/package.mask. But I don't think this would be necessary.
2) I've posted in the Multimedia item on the forums board about a
certain problem I had with Pango, a known issue that is fixed with
pango-1.29.5. I have read up on making my own overlays, but I'm
wondering if there is a way to request an addition to the tree, or
expedite such an addition? I'd rather for now rely on Portage than to
get into my own interventions here.
I'd expect the maintainer of Pango to add an ebuild for this version. If
version 1.29.5 is very new, maybe you have to wait a little for that to
happen.
3) This brings me to the next question, which is: Geany for Mac OSX is
available in other package managers, but is completely missing from the
Gentoo tree; --search brings up nothing at all. I imagine I can install
it, but I'm wondering first whether again it is possible to request that
it be added to the Gentoo tree?
That's weird, it shows up here:
weird ~ # eix geany
* dev-util/geany
Available versions: 0.19.2 (~)0.20 0.21 {{+vte}}
Homepage:http://www.geany.org
Description: GTK+ based fast and lightweight IDE
* dev-util/geany-plugins
Available versions: 0.19 (~)0.20-r1 0.21.1 {{debugger devhelp
enchant gpg gtkspell lua nls soup webkit}} Homepage:
http://plugins.geany.org/geany-plugins Description: A
collection of different plugins for Geany
Oh, you should definitely install app-portage/eix, if you don't have
already. emerge eix, then use eix-update to index your portage tree, and
use eix instead of emerge --search.
Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote:
Hello, Gentoo.
I've been thinking about the problem of the conflation of every
executable into /usr. If /usr isn't on /, the system can't boot without
special preperations. Nothing new here.
The method usually discussed is to copy the booting software into an
initramfs on a partition other than /usr, and use this to mount /usr.
My question: what, technically, prevents me from copying the booting
software instead to /sbin and booting the system that way?
Dynamic linking is probably going to be the killer piece. After every
update, you'd need to make sure all the libraries the binary needs are
also accessible on the / mount.
The other piece is probably somewhere along the lines of if you're
going to use an initramfs anyway, now you can put / on
$composite_block_device, too! (Which is something I'll probably start
doing on any system where I'd want /usr on a composite block device
anyway. Which is pretty much all of them; I like the load consumer
balancing behaviors I get from RAID{0|5|6})
--
:wq
RE: [gentoo-user] After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
From: Alan Mackenzie [mailto:a...@muc.de]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:37 AM
My question: what, technically, prevents me from copying the booting
software instead to /sbin and booting the system that way?
Nothing; in fact, this was the general solution to the problem of something
else in /usr/{sbin,bin,lib} is needed at boot for a long time. More and
more software was getting moved into /{s,}bin, and in particular into /lib,
to make it available in the early boot stages.
There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you can ensure that any
hard-coded paths to those binaries are updated properly.
As you move more and more software off of /usr into / you start to realize
that the idea of tiny partition that contains just what I need to boot and
mount /usr is becoming not so tiny anymore. The distinction between what
is boot software versus user software gets less clear. Then it's just
question of how far you take this process before you reach your personal
threshold of questioning why you have two partitions at all. Whether you
reach that point or not depends on how complex your boot process is, what
you actually need running to boot, and how personally invested in a split
/usr you happen to be :)
--Mike
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:30:41 -0400, Michael Mol wrote: If we're going to be shoved into tight space like this, I'd be nice if the you can just use $x tools work on stable. I've got three previously-working systems at home I can't risk rebooting right now because of this udev+/usr nonsense. I almost invariably put /usr and /home on top of LVM, RAID or both. Only the testing udev needs an initramfs now, so it doesn't really matter yet. However, it would be nice if dracut were stabilised at least a week before udev-18* to give time to play with it. It certainly needs to be stabilised before the news announcement of udev-18* going stable. -- Neil Bothwick The horizon of many people is a circle with a radius of zero. They call this their point of view. -- Albert Einstein signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Edenfield kut...@kutulu.org wrote: [snip] As you move more and more software off of /usr into / you start to realize that the idea of tiny partition that contains just what I need to boot and mount /usr is becoming not so tiny anymore. The distinction between what is boot software versus user software gets less clear. Then it's just question of how far you take this process before you reach your personal threshold of questioning why you have two partitions at all. Whether you reach that point or not depends on how complex your boot process is, what you actually need running to boot, and how personally invested in a split /usr you happen to be :) This extends directly by analogy to having binaries on /usr mounted on anything other than plain disk. Say you wanted to have / on LVM on RAID6. Now you don't have any choice but to move stuff from /usr/* to your initramfs, since the kernel isn't even going to automount your RAID for you if you're not using the 0.9 metadata format, and you've still got to cope with LVM. As you say, the boundary between user software and boot software grows less and less clear, and your *initramfs* grows bigger and bigger. How long will there remain *any point* to LVM or software RAID, once you have to preload the bulk of your operating system into RAM before you can access their contents? One shouldn't need an entire operating system preloaded into RAM before being able to access the current versions of anything. The *real* fun is going to start once you get daemons which happen to need to be launched while you're still in your initramfs stage, and then you need to restart those daemons as part of an update later in the system's uptime. That's going to be a fun one to solve. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:02:02AM -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:
From: Alan Mackenzie [mailto:a...@muc.de]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:37 AM
My question: what, technically, prevents me from copying the booting
software instead to /sbin and booting the system that way?
Nothing; in fact, this was the general solution to the problem of something
else in /usr/{sbin,bin,lib} is needed at boot for a long time. More and
more software was getting moved into /{s,}bin, and in particular into /lib,
to make it available in the early boot stages.
There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you can ensure that any
hard-coded paths to those binaries are updated properly.
Surely this is the same, whether one copies the booting software to
initramfs or /sbin, isn't it?
As you move more and more software off of /usr into / you start to realize
that the idea of tiny partition that contains just what I need to boot and
mount /usr is becoming not so tiny anymore. The distinction between what
is boot software versus user software gets less clear.
Again, isn't this the same for an initramfs?
Then it's just question of how far you take this process before you
reach your personal threshold of questioning why you have two
partitions at all. Whether you reach that point or not depends on how
complex your boot process is, what you actually need running to boot,
and how personally invested in a split /usr you happen to be :)
I've decided that, if push comes to shove, I'm going to go for /usr on /
rather than a fragile initramfs system. I've got everything bar / on
RAID 1/LVM at the moment, but I don't really use LVM, so I could
dismantle that too, losing all the baggage that brings with it.
Having said that, my system (including Gnome) is working perfectly well
with mdev, and see no reason why that shouldn't continue.
--Mike
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
RE: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
If this is all you need, I recommend you use dracut. The default installation (no use-flags or optional modules) will product an initramfs that loads whatever you current rootfs and /usr partitions are. I've been working on updating the wiki with more detailed instructions; for your case what's there now ought to be plenty: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Dracut Dracut is masked on ~amd64. Bugs me, as I'd rather use something like that than genkernel (I very much like building my own kernels; it helps me keep things lean, and keeps me familiar with the capabilities of current and future systems). But now I have to find time to learn how to use Genkernel. If we're going to be shoved into tight space like this, I'd be nice if the you can just use $x tools work on stable. I've got three previously-working systems at home I can't risk rebooting right now because of this udev+/usr nonsense. I almost invariably put /usr and /home on top of LVM, RAID or both. I'm pretty sure that a stable Dracut is a prerequisite for a stable udev-182+. Hopefully with more people taking interest in using an initramfs it will stabilize quickly. It's working for me on all of the systems I'm tried it, so I'm going to try switching a couple of servers at work over to using it. But none of them have anything particularly complex (no net boots, for example) so I don't know how much of a test case they'll be :) --Mike
Re: [gentoo-user] After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:02:02AM -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote: SNIP There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you can ensure that any hard-coded paths to those binaries are updated properly. Surely this is the same, whether one copies the booting software to initramfs or /sbin, isn't it? If it's 'hard coded' then I think it's not the same. Imagine a text script which specifically tries to find, say, '/usr/bin/ldd' as opposed to 'ldd'. ldd isn't there any more so the script just fails. Just a thought, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] problem with e2fsck and the pre mount of /usr
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:23, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote: Hi. I upgraded genkernel and openrc to see what would happen with the initrd mounting /usr -- since I use an initrd anyway. Well, it mounts OK, but when it comes time to do the e2fsck, that fails because its mounted. Is there a way to get the initrd to do an e2fsck before it mounts /usr and then I can have it not do one in the /etc/fstab -- or any other solution to this problem? I am using gentoo unstable with 3.2.6-gentoo. Any assistance would be appreciated. Have your init mount it read-only and fsck should be happy, iirc -- Douglas J Hunley (doug.hun...@gmail.com) Twitter: @hunleyd Web: douglasjhunley.com G+: http://goo.gl/sajR3
Re: [gentoo-user] After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:26:46 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: As you move more and more software off of /usr into / you start to realize that the idea of tiny partition that contains just what I need to boot and mount /usr is becoming not so tiny anymore. The distinction between what is boot software versus user software gets less clear. Again, isn't this the same for an initramfs? No, because an initramfs only needs enough to mount / and /usr, then everything else comes from the usual source. If you're not using and fancy block devices, the initramfs only needs busybox and an init script. Even adding LVM, RAID and encryption only requires three more binaries - and those are all disposed of once switch_root is run and the tmpfs released. -- Neil Bothwick This is as bad as it can get; but don't bet on it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Re: hylafax+
Joseph syscon780 at gmail.com writes: I need this application so I installed one via layman paddymac hylafax+ however the init script did wasn't install. How to write the init script for this hylafax+? As way pointed out, you will most like become the maintainer so: Here are a few links that may help. http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Creating_an_Updated_Ebuild http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/sunrise/wiki/CodingStandards http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Writing_Ebuilds http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=1 http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/index.html hth, (google for more) James
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:30:41 -0400, Michael Mol wrote: If we're going to be shoved into tight space like this, I'd be nice if the you can just use $x tools work on stable. I've got three previously-working systems at home I can't risk rebooting right now because of this udev+/usr nonsense. I almost invariably put /usr and /home on top of LVM, RAID or both. Only the testing udev needs an initramfs now, so it doesn't really matter yet. However, it would be nice if dracut were stabilised at least a week before udev-18* to give time to play with it. It certainly needs to be stabilised before the news announcement of udev-18* going stable. With the latest genkernel, my initrd mounts /usr, however the fsck is never done because its mounted -- any solution for this? -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici cov...@ccs.covici.com
RE: [gentoo-user] After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
From: Alan Mackenzie [mailto:a...@muc.de]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:27 AM
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:02:02AM -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:
From: Alan Mackenzie [mailto:a...@muc.de]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:37 AM
My question: what, technically, prevents me from copying the booting
software instead to /sbin and booting the system that way?
Nothing; in fact, this was the general solution to the problem of
something else in /usr/{sbin,bin,lib} is needed at boot for a long
time. More and more software was getting moved into /{s,}bin, and in
particular into /lib, to make it available in the early boot stages.
There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you can ensure that any
hard-coded paths to those binaries are updated properly.
Surely this is the same, whether one copies the booting software to
initramfs
or /sbin, isn't it?
No, because very little of my booting software is on my initramfs; it
contains the kernel modules for my SATA drive and a script to mount /usr
before launching /sbin/init. You *could* build an initramfs that included
all of those other items, including udev and fsck tools if you wanted to,
but you don't have to. (You might want to, for example, to have a more
fully-features rescue shell, but I have a LiveCD for that.)
The difference is what part of the booting process you need the software
for. Without an initramfs, your boot loader loads your kernel, your kernel
launches /sbin/init, and /sbin/init starts running your startup scripts.
Everything that needs to happen must happen in those startup scripts. The
problems occur when script #1 (say, start udev) sometimes needs script #2
(mount /usr) to have run, but script #2 sometimes needs script #1 to have
run. You can solve this in a number of ways:
* Fix script #1 to never need script #2 (move everything you need off /usr)
* Fix script #2 to never need script #1 (put /usr on the same partition as
/sbin/init)
* Adjust the order of the scripts on a case-by-case bases (move script #2 to
an initrd when needed)
Option one has traditionally been the way to solve these kinds of problems,
but with dynamic linking and external hooks the reach of the boot-time
software is getting overly broad. Option #2 is the simplest and lowest-risk
option, but not everyone has a hardware configuration that makes that a
viable choice. So option #3 is basically you do whatever you have to do to
get a /usr before /sbin/init runs.
As you move more and more software off of /usr into / you start to
realize that the idea of tiny partition that contains just what I
need to boot and mount /usr is becoming not so tiny anymore. The
distinction between what is boot software versus user software gets
less clear.
Again, isn't this the same for an initramfs?
This part is, true, but the point of an initramfs is that, once you switch
over to init, the initramfs is out of the picture. With a traditional boot,
the stuff you move into your rootfs to make booting work is there forever.
With an initramfs, you don't need (for example) all of the udev rules and
libraries and such; you just need enough statically linked binaries to mount
/usr; when the init switch happens, your real, production binaries show up
and the trimmed-down copies from your initramfs go away.
Then it's just question of how far you take this process before you
reach your personal threshold of questioning why you have two
partitions at all. Whether you reach that point or not depends on how
complex your boot process is, what you actually need running to boot,
and how personally invested in a split /usr you happen to be :)
I've decided that, if push comes to shove, I'm going to go for /usr on /
rather
than a fragile initramfs system. I've got everything bar / on RAID 1/LVM
at
the moment, but I don't really use LVM, so I could dismantle that too,
losing
all the baggage that brings with it.
I'm using both on most of my systems now, though admittedly on my laptop
it's just to get the boot animation from plymouth :)
Having said that, my system (including Gnome) is working perfectly well
with
mdev, and see no reason why that shouldn't continue.
And that's a perfectly legitimate option; you're continuing to use a process
that has worked for decades. The problem with that option is not that it
doesn't work for plenty of people, it's that it doesn't *scale* very well.
If you're writing the software that needs to work out-of-the-box for every
Fedora/Debian/Gentoo/etc system installed from this point forward, you need
to worry about scale. If you're setting up a few hundred nearly identical
servers with much more limited hardware that is under your direct control,
you can focus your solution to a much narrow scope.
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Mike Edenfield wrote: If this is all you need, I recommend you use dracut. The default installation (no use-flags or optional modules) will product an initramfs that loads whatever you current rootfs and /usr partitions are. I've been working on updating the wiki with more detailed instructions; for your case what's there now ought to be plenty: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Dracut Dracut is masked on ~amd64. Bugs me, as I'd rather use something like that than genkernel (I very much like building my own kernels; it helps me keep things lean, and keeps me familiar with the capabilities of current and future systems). But now I have to find time to learn how to use Genkernel. If we're going to be shoved into tight space like this, I'd be nice if the you can just use $x tools work on stable. I've got three previously-working systems at home I can't risk rebooting right now because of this udev+/usr nonsense. I almost invariably put /usr and /home on top of LVM, RAID or both. I'm pretty sure that a stable Dracut is a prerequisite for a stable udev-182+. Hopefully with more people taking interest in using an initramfs it will stabilize quickly. It's working for me on all of the systems I'm tried it, so I'm going to try switching a couple of servers at work over to using it. But none of them have anything particularly complex (no net boots, for example) so I don't know how much of a test case they'll be :) --Mike I'm still trying to figure out why my dracut init thingy isn't working right. If I use the init thingy, I can't su to root from a user. If I don't use the init thingy, I can su just fine. By the way, I boot the exact same kernel either way I boot. So, the fix doesn't seem to work for me and I have no plans of using genkernel. I dunno. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:20:44 -0400, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote: With the latest genkernel, my initrd mounts /usr, however the fsck is never done because its mounted -- any solution for this? ISTR this coming up recently and the solution being to run fsck from the shutdown runlevel. -- Neil Bothwick FINE: Tax for doing wrong. Tax: fine for doing fine. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Dracut is masked on ~amd64. Bugs me, as I'd rather use something like that than genkernel (I very much like building my own kernels; it helps me keep things lean, and keeps me familiar with the capabilities of current and future systems). But now I have to find time to learn how to use Genkernel. I don't understand why people always say that they hate genkernel because they like to build the kernel on their own. You still can do this with genkernel. I've been doing it for years. This is my workflow after I merged a new kernel # copy old config to new kernel sources % zcat /proc/config.gz /usr/src/linux/.config # enter source dir % cd /usr/src/linux # run make oldconfig (help you keep things lean, keeps you familiar with the capabilities of current and future systems.) % make oldconfig # compile kernel and modules, generate initrd, install to /boot and /lib/modules, create symlinks in /boot % genkernel all # recompile 3rd party modules % module-rebuild rebuild You just have to tell genkernel not to make mrproper in /etc/genkernel.conf - so that it actually uses your kernel config, and in essence, let's you build your own kernel. I also tell genkernel not to run make clean - for a faster recompile if I have changed my kernel config. I love genkernel, it just makes life so much easier, you don't have enter every command manually. And still keeps it the gentoo-way: you can configure everything so that it does exactly what you wan't. Just take a look at /etc/genkernel.conf genkernel can do even more stuff for you. For example include a copy of /etc/mdadm.conf into your initramfs so that the initramfs can mount your software raid (even with metadata higher than 0.90 :) - this is where the kernel raid auto assembly fails). Or enable a splash theme for a graphical boot - if you like that sort of thing. I'm sure you're gonna love it to after you have used it for some time.
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Michael Hampicke gentoo-u...@hadt.biz wrote: Dracut is masked on ~amd64. Bugs me, as I'd rather use something like that than genkernel (I very much like building my own kernels; it helps me keep things lean, and keeps me familiar with the capabilities of current and future systems). But now I have to find time to learn how to use Genkernel. I don't understand why people always say that they hate genkernel because they like to build the kernel on their own. You still can do this with genkernel. I've been doing it for years. This is my workflow after I merged a new kernel # copy old config to new kernel sources % zcat /proc/config.gz /usr/src/linux/.config # enter source dir % cd /usr/src/linux # run make oldconfig (help you keep things lean, keeps you familiar with the capabilities of current and future systems.) % make oldconfig # compile kernel and modules, generate initrd, install to /boot and /lib/modules, create symlinks in /boot % genkernel all # recompile 3rd party modules % module-rebuild rebuild You just have to tell genkernel not to make mrproper in /etc/genkernel.conf - so that it actually uses your kernel config, and in essence, let's you build your own kernel. I also tell genkernel not to run make clean - for a faster recompile if I have changed my kernel config. I love genkernel, it just makes life so much easier, you don't have enter every command manually. And still keeps it the gentoo-way: you can configure everything so that it does exactly what you wan't. Just take a look at /etc/genkernel.conf genkernel can do even more stuff for you. For example include a copy of /etc/mdadm.conf into your initramfs so that the initramfs can mount your software raid (even with metadata higher than 0.90 :) - this is where the kernel raid auto assembly fails). Or enable a splash theme for a graphical boot - if you like that sort of thing. I'm sure you're gonna love it to after you have used it for some time. Sounds useful. At least parts of your workflow belong in the gentoo installation guide... -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Michael Hampicke wrote: Dracut is masked on ~amd64. Bugs me, as I'd rather use something like that than genkernel (I very much like building my own kernels; it helps me keep things lean, and keeps me familiar with the capabilities of current and future systems). But now I have to find time to learn how to use Genkernel. I don't understand why people always say that they hate genkernel because they like to build the kernel on their own. You still can do this with genkernel. I've been doing it for years. This is my workflow after I merged a new kernel # copy old config to new kernel sources % zcat /proc/config.gz /usr/src/linux/.config # enter source dir % cd /usr/src/linux # run make oldconfig (help you keep things lean, keeps you familiar with the capabilities of current and future systems.) % make oldconfig # compile kernel and modules, generate initrd, install to /boot and /lib/modules, create symlinks in /boot % genkernel all # recompile 3rd party modules % module-rebuild rebuild You just have to tell genkernel not to make mrproper in /etc/genkernel.conf - so that it actually uses your kernel config, and in essence, let's you build your own kernel. I also tell genkernel not to run make clean - for a faster recompile if I have changed my kernel config. I love genkernel, it just makes life so much easier, you don't have enter every command manually. And still keeps it the gentoo-way: you can configure everything so that it does exactly what you wan't. Just take a look at /etc/genkernel.conf genkernel can do even more stuff for you. For example include a copy of /etc/mdadm.conf into your initramfs so that the initramfs can mount your software raid (even with metadata higher than 0.90 :) - this is where the kernel raid auto assembly fails). Or enable a splash theme for a graphical boot - if you like that sort of thing. I'm sure you're gonna love it to after you have used it for some time. I tried genkernel and it was a miserable failure for me. So, for me, I have no desire to use it. I have also read where others have the same experience so it is not just me. It may work fine for some but for others it does not. I plan to keep making mine the manual way. You can keep using genkernel if you want. BTW, mine is like this: copy old config make oldconfig make all make modules_install copy kernel to /boot That to me seems a LOT easier and it also works very well for me. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michael Hampicke wrote: SNIP I don't understand why people always say that they hate genkernel because they like to build the kernel on their own. You still can do this with genkernel. I've been doing it for years. SNIP I tried genkernel and it was a miserable failure for me. So, for me, I have no desire to use it. I have also read where others have the same experience so it is not just me. It may work fine for some but for others it does not. I plan to keep making mine the manual way. You can keep using genkernel if you want. BTW, mine is like this: copy old config make oldconfig make all make modules_install copy kernel to /boot That to me seems a LOT easier and it also works very well for me. Dale :-) :-) Until you add in the work of doing the initrd for each new kernel. I think that's Michael's point. I agree with you Dale. I do it the same way as you, except if I build an initrd I've done it completely by hand, building the whole directory structure, etc, then building it into the binary. That's a lot of work. Today we have two tools I know of, genkernel dracut, that are represented as doing this work for us. I'm interested in what genkernel did wrong for you, as well as how to use both tools successfully. - Mark
RE: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
From: Dale [mailto:rdalek1...@gmail.com] Mike Edenfield wrote: I'm pretty sure that a stable Dracut is a prerequisite for a stable udev-182+. Hopefully with more people taking interest in using an initramfs it will stabilize quickly. It's working for me on all of the systems I'm tried it, so I'm going to try switching a couple of servers at work over to using it. But none of them have anything particularly complex (no net boots, for example) so I don't know how much of a test case they'll be :) I'm still trying to figure out why my dracut init thingy isn't working right. If I use the init thingy, I can't su to root from a user. If I don't use the init thingy, I can su just fine. By the way, I boot the exact same kernel either way I boot. So, just to make sure I'm understanding you here (cuz it sounds kinda crazy) If you specify a dracut-created inittramfs in your grub.conf, your machine boots, but using 'su' to go from root - non-root fails? If you remove the initrd line from grub.conf and boot the exact same kernel, 'su' works fine? What's the error? Cuz once the pivot_root step happens and the real init is running, things in user-space should be *exactly* the same as if you had no initramfs. --Mike
[gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk writes: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:26:46 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: As you move more and more software off of /usr into / you start to realize that the idea of tiny partition that contains just what I need to boot and mount /usr is becoming not so tiny anymore. The distinction between what is boot software versus user software gets less clear. Again, isn't this the same for an initramfs? No, because an initramfs only needs enough to mount / and /usr, then everything else comes from the usual source. If you're not using and fancy block devices, the initramfs only needs busybox and an init script. Even adding LVM, RAID and encryption only requires three more binaries - and those are all disposed of once switch_root is run and the tmpfs released. The question remains. If it's possible to do that from an initramfs, then shouldn't it be possible to put the same tools and binarias on /, and mount /usr early?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: hylafax+
On 03/27/12 14:47, James wrote: Joseph syscon780 at gmail.com writes: I need this application so I installed one via layman paddymac hylafax+ however the init script did wasn't install. How to write the init script for this hylafax+? As way pointed out, you will most like become the maintainer so: Here are a few links that may help. http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Creating_an_Updated_Ebuild http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/sunrise/wiki/CodingStandards http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Writing_Ebuilds http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=1 http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/index.html hth, (google for more) James I don't have skills to maintain ebuild :-/ -- Joseph
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Mike Edenfield wrote: From: Dale [mailto:rdalek1...@gmail.com] Mike Edenfield wrote: I'm pretty sure that a stable Dracut is a prerequisite for a stable udev-182+. Hopefully with more people taking interest in using an initramfs it will stabilize quickly. It's working for me on all of the systems I'm tried it, so I'm going to try switching a couple of servers at work over to using it. But none of them have anything particularly complex (no net boots, for example) so I don't know how much of a test case they'll be :) I'm still trying to figure out why my dracut init thingy isn't working right. If I use the init thingy, I can't su to root from a user. If I don't use the init thingy, I can su just fine. By the way, I boot the exact same kernel either way I boot. So, just to make sure I'm understanding you here (cuz it sounds kinda crazy) If you specify a dracut-created inittramfs in your grub.conf, your machine boots, but using 'su' to go from root - non-root fails? If you remove the initrd line from grub.conf and boot the exact same kernel, 'su' works fine? What's the error? Cuz once the pivot_root step happens and the real init is running, things in user-space should be *exactly* the same as if you had no initramfs. --Mike The other way around. When I boot using the init thingy, if I login as a user, dale in this case, I can not su to root. I think the error was something like authentication failed or something to that effect. I can reboot the exact same kernel but omit the init part, everything works fine. I even tried different kernels and it still does it. The reason it is a issue for me is that I use Konsole within KDE to emerge, edit config files and such. When I use the init thingy, none of those work. I get a error about paths being wrong or incorrect password. If I reboot without the init thingy, it works fine. I can't find any difference other than the init thingy being used. Weird, yea, but it sure doesn't work here. I found me another drive the other day. May be trying Kubuntu here pretty soon. This udev and /usr crap is just getting on my nerves. I don't have a lot of them left and I need to save the few I do have. At least by using something else, I don't have to fiddle with the crap and installs to fix things are a LOT quicker. I mentioned this before but it is just getting closer and closer. First time my system fails to boot because of this mess, it's decision time. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:55:37 +0200 c...@chrekh.se wrote: Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk writes: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:26:46 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: As you move more and more software off of /usr into / you start to realize that the idea of tiny partition that contains just what I need to boot and mount /usr is becoming not so tiny anymore. The distinction between what is boot software versus user software gets less clear. Again, isn't this the same for an initramfs? No, because an initramfs only needs enough to mount / and /usr, then everything else comes from the usual source. If you're not using and fancy block devices, the initramfs only needs busybox and an init script. Even adding LVM, RAID and encryption only requires three more binaries - and those are all disposed of once switch_root is run and the tmpfs released. The question remains. If it's possible to do that from an initramfs, then shouldn't it be possible to put the same tools and binarias on /, and mount /usr early? Of course it's possible, it's merely a gigantic list of cd commands. The question is, is it advisable? I offer you two choices: a. Move a few commands into an initramfs, truly only the ones you really do need, or b. Move 7G of files onto / (i.e. everything) and lose any benefit you (and everyone else with different ideas to you) may want by having a separate /usr. Oh, and you get to deal with finding the hardcoded paths and fixing the code yourself. Those are your choices. Pick one. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On 27.03.2012 20:30, Dale wrote: May be trying Kubuntu here pretty soon. Be prepared for hard times using Kubuntu as it is now no major part of the Ubuntu family anymore. That means much less money and much less manpower. And if this issue with a init-thingy bothers you, Kubuntu will be living hell. As long as (K)Ubuntu works everything is fine, but in case of an error you just can't fix it. Everything is close tight to everything else. Change on thing and all fails. Greetings Sebastian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
RE: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
From: c...@chrekh.se [mailto:c...@chrekh.se] Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk writes: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:26:46 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: As you move more and more software off of /usr into / you start to realize that the idea of tiny partition that contains just what I need to boot and mount /usr is becoming not so tiny anymore. The distinction between what is boot software versus user software gets less clear. Again, isn't this the same for an initramfs? No, because an initramfs only needs enough to mount / and /usr, then everything else comes from the usual source. If you're not using and fancy block devices, the initramfs only needs busybox and an init script. Even adding LVM, RAID and encryption only requires three more binaries - and those are all disposed of once switch_root is run and the tmpfs released. The question remains. If it's possible to do that from an initramfs, then shouldn't it be possible to put the same tools and binarias on /, and mount /usr early? Yes , of course it's /possible/, it's just not /practical/. Changing the contents of your initramfs is a decision you, as an admin, make that affects your system(s). Changing the installed location of, say, udevd and bluetoothd and whatever other tools need to get pulled out of /usr is a decision that affects everyone who is using those packages. Changing the order of init scripts is an even bigger mess, but mostly because of the software requirements to make it function. Most Linux users, by a vast but very silent majority, are plenty happy to put / and /usr on one partition, wipe their hands on their pants, and move on with life. Thus, the people developing and packaging those required boot packages can leave them right where they are, and everything works. Some Linux users have reasons (largely legitimate ones) why this is not a valid option. Those users have three choices * Move the required packages away from their default installation locations on their machines, as you're suggestion, and fix the order of your boot scripts to mount /usr earlier than anything that needs it. * Install (or develop) alternative versions of the tools that do not have the same boot-time requirements, thus allowing you to ignore the whole mess. This is what Walt and his mdev team are making happen. * Use an initramfs to do whatever specific thing your machine(s) need to do to make the rest of the software work out-of-the-box. So, it's not a matter of one choice working and one not. It's a matter of one choice being much lower maintenance for the people donating their time to produce the software in the first place. If someone (maybe you) were to figure out the actual steps needed to mount /usr early in the boot, without and initramfs, without swapping out udev for busybox or whatever, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in seeing how that's done. There's a possibility that it turns out to be way easier than anyone thought, and that supporting a split /usr becomes no big deal. In practice, I'm going to guess that it turns out to be a way bigger maintenance nightmare (and probably more fragile) than: root # emerge dracut root # dracut -H And probably won't be something that the developers or package maintainers are going to commit to supporting. --Mike
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Sebastian Beßler wrote: On 27.03.2012 20:30, Dale wrote: May be trying Kubuntu here pretty soon. Be prepared for hard times using Kubuntu as it is now no major part of the Ubuntu family anymore. That means much less money and much less manpower. And if this issue with a init-thingy bothers you, Kubuntu will be living hell. As long as (K)Ubuntu works everything is fine, but in case of an error you just can't fix it. Everything is close tight to everything else. Change on thing and all fails. Greetings Sebastian Well, based on my experience with Mandrake back in the day, the init thingy is going to break for me here just like it did there. I'm thinking about Kubuntu but I may actually decide on something else. Thing is, it appears Gentoo is going to break my system so I may as well find something that I can install lots quicker to fix what is broke. Kubuntu is just one option. I installed it for my brother and it works fine, SO FAR. I may be jumping out of the frying pan into a fire but I think I need to at least try something else. This is very true if I continue to have issues with the init thingy and not being able to su to root. I know how to use a console but I only use it when needed. That's not very often and I sort of like it that way. Barring that, I could just put everything on / and just hope nothing goes bonkers and fills it up with useless errors or something in the messages file. I have had this happen before and /var was full, I mean FULL. I divide things so that I don't get conquered when it hits the fan. One thing about Linux, it has a LOT of options. Oh, there is talk of moving more things on -dev. If I didn't know better, I'd think someone was trying to just change Gentoo until it doesn't work any more. I dunno. Maybe I'm ready for a Apple now. o_O Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:09:23 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: copy old config make oldconfig make all make modules_install copy kernel to /boot make all modules_install install does everything the last two lines do in a single command. That to me seems a LOT easier and it also works very well for me. Until you add in the work of doing the initrd for each new kernel. I think that's Michael's point. make all with build the initramfs, just set the source path in the kernel config. I agree with you Dale. I do it the same way as you, except if I build an initrd I've done it completely by hand, building the whole directory structure, etc, then building it into the binary. That's a lot of work. Yes it is, I now I used to waste my time like that. Now I have a config file that lists what needs to go into the initramfs and the kernel build automatically pulls everything in for me. The only other thing I need is the init script. So I get the benefit of hand crafting everything with the ease of automated building. -- Neil Bothwick Meow SPLAT! Woof SPLAT!Jeez, it's really raining today. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:30:41 -0500, Dale wrote: The other way around. When I boot using the init thingy, if I login as a user, dale in this case, I can not su to root. I think the error was something like authentication failed or something to that effect. I can reboot the exact same kernel but omit the init part, everything works fine. I even tried different kernels and it still does it. What is in the init script in your initramfs? -- Neil Bothwick Headline: Explosion At Sperm Bank, Nurses Overcome signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Sebastian Beßler wrote: On 27.03.2012 20:30, Dale wrote: May be trying Kubuntu here pretty soon. Be prepared for hard times using Kubuntu as it is now no major part of the Ubuntu family anymore. That means much less money and much less manpower. And if this issue with a init-thingy bothers you, Kubuntu will be living hell. As long as (K)Ubuntu works everything is fine, but in case of an error you just can't fix it. Everything is close tight to everything else. Change on thing and all fails. Greetings Sebastian Well, based on my experience with Mandrake back in the day, the init thingy is going to break for me here just like it did there. I'm thinking about Kubuntu but I may actually decide on something else. Thing is, it appears Gentoo is going to break my system so I may as well find something that I can install lots quicker to fix what is broke. Kubuntu is just one option. I installed it for my brother and it works fine, SO FAR. I may be jumping out of the frying pan into a fire but I think I need to at least try something else. This is very true if I continue to have issues with the init thingy and not being able to su to root. I know how to use a console but I only use it when needed. That's not very often and I sort of like it that way. Barring that, I could just put everything on / and just hope nothing goes bonkers and fills it up with useless errors or something in the messages file. I have had this happen before and /var was full, I mean FULL. I divide things so that I don't get conquered when it hits the fan. One thing about Linux, it has a LOT of options. Oh, there is talk of moving more things on -dev. If I didn't know better, I'd think someone was trying to just change Gentoo until it doesn't work any more. I dunno. Maybe I'm ready for a Apple now. o_O The reason I like Gentoo (and why I've moved so much stuff to it) is because it lets me get in and have much finer _optional_ control over many things with minimal fuss. Ubuntu-derived distributions make it very, very difficult to change very, very many things, while retaining an update-stable setup. As long as you don't have to stray to far from their One True Way, Ubuntu (or most Linux distros, actually) should be fine. The annoying thing about Ubuntu is how their One True Way changes dramatically every six months to a year. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Mark Knecht wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michael Hampicke wrote: SNIP I don't understand why people always say that they hate genkernel because they like to build the kernel on their own. You still can do this with genkernel. I've been doing it for years. SNIP I tried genkernel and it was a miserable failure for me. So, for me, I have no desire to use it. I have also read where others have the same experience so it is not just me. It may work fine for some but for others it does not. I plan to keep making mine the manual way. You can keep using genkernel if you want. BTW, mine is like this: copy old config make oldconfig make all make modules_install copy kernel to /boot That to me seems a LOT easier and it also works very well for me. Dale :-) :-) Until you add in the work of doing the initrd for each new kernel. I think that's Michael's point. I agree with you Dale. I do it the same way as you, except if I build an initrd I've done it completely by hand, building the whole directory structure, etc, then building it into the binary. That's a lot of work. Today we have two tools I know of, genkernel dracut, that are represented as doing this work for us. I'm interested in what genkernel did wrong for you, as well as how to use both tools successfully. - Mark Thing is, I can't get dracut to boot a system as I use it. See my other post. Right now, my plan is to mask udev at what it is and either switch to another distro, hope someone figures out why dracut isn't working or just move everything to / and hope it doesn't ever screw up right after I go to bed and full up / with errors in the messages file. I had this happen once. Having /var on it's own partition was the only thing that saved my butt. The thing about switching to a distro that uses a init thingy, I don't have to mess with it. Someone else makes the stupid thing. Just weighing out my options. There are lots of things to weigh to. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP Right now, my plan is to mask udev at what it is and either switch to another distro SNIP Just remember, with distros it's the device you know for the devil you don't know... I don't understand why any of this /usr /udev stuff is bothering you. Do you really use a separate /usr? Aren't you on stable like me or are you on ~amd64? Good luck. I'm positive you'll come to your senses about this Ubuntu nonsense! ;-))) Cheers, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Michael Mol wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Sebastian Beßler wrote: On 27.03.2012 20:30, Dale wrote: May be trying Kubuntu here pretty soon. Be prepared for hard times using Kubuntu as it is now no major part of the Ubuntu family anymore. That means much less money and much less manpower. And if this issue with a init-thingy bothers you, Kubuntu will be living hell. As long as (K)Ubuntu works everything is fine, but in case of an error you just can't fix it. Everything is close tight to everything else. Change on thing and all fails. Greetings Sebastian Well, based on my experience with Mandrake back in the day, the init thingy is going to break for me here just like it did there. I'm thinking about Kubuntu but I may actually decide on something else. Thing is, it appears Gentoo is going to break my system so I may as well find something that I can install lots quicker to fix what is broke. Kubuntu is just one option. I installed it for my brother and it works fine, SO FAR. I may be jumping out of the frying pan into a fire but I think I need to at least try something else. This is very true if I continue to have issues with the init thingy and not being able to su to root. I know how to use a console but I only use it when needed. That's not very often and I sort of like it that way. Barring that, I could just put everything on / and just hope nothing goes bonkers and fills it up with useless errors or something in the messages file. I have had this happen before and /var was full, I mean FULL. I divide things so that I don't get conquered when it hits the fan. One thing about Linux, it has a LOT of options. Oh, there is talk of moving more things on -dev. If I didn't know better, I'd think someone was trying to just change Gentoo until it doesn't work any more. I dunno. Maybe I'm ready for a Apple now. o_O The reason I like Gentoo (and why I've moved so much stuff to it) is because it lets me get in and have much finer _optional_ control over many things with minimal fuss. Ubuntu-derived distributions make it very, very difficult to change very, very many things, while retaining an update-stable setup. As long as you don't have to stray to far from their One True Way, Ubuntu (or most Linux distros, actually) should be fine. The annoying thing about Ubuntu is how their One True Way changes dramatically every six months to a year. I like, even love, Gentoo. Thing is, if it gets to where it doesn't work like it should for me, there's no point in me using it. If I wanted a OS that doesn't work well for me, I'd be buying M$'s crap. Hey, it does install fairly fast but it is pretty crappy. LOL I have said this about meeting a new lady, time tells. If I get to the point where I have to use a init thingy and I can't get one to work, Gentoo is no longer for me. Working is a must have thing for my OS. I don't mind putting in the effort to have a great install or putting in the effort to update it but it has to boot and work. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
[gentoo-user] WARNING latest lvm2 breaks systems with older udev
My system wouldn't fully boot this morning after updating lvm (~amd64). Fortunately a mount -a followed by emerge -1 lvm2-previous version has be back in business (with the new lvm2 masked). I subsequently found the bug below. allan Bug 409921 - Upgrading to sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.95 causes failure in mounting lvm2 filesystems at boot After upgrading to sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.95 the system failed to mount filesystems belonging to LVM devices during boot phase. The errors are catched at the attached photgraphs. After logging-in, only the file systems not belonging to LVM were mounted. The LVM devices were there, and doing 'mount -a' succeded (all partitions were mounted). After this I was able to downgrade to sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.93-r1, which works without problems. I am using sys-fs/udev-171-r5, the newer verions are masked due to the separate /usr partition on LVM - I haven't yet got enough time to configure initramfs.
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP I like, even love, Gentoo. Thing is, if it gets to where it doesn't work like it should for me, there's no point in me using it. If I wanted a OS that doesn't work well for me, I'd be buying M$'s crap. Hey, it does install fairly fast but it is pretty crappy. LOL What? Me worry? Chill Dale. The Gentoo devs will get it there. And what will you do if Ubuntu doesn't boot? Learn another distro? Nahh... ;-) - Mark
RE: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
From: Neil Bothwick [mailto:n...@digimed.co.uk] Yes it is, I now I used to waste my time like that. Now I have a config file that lists what needs to go into the initramfs and the kernel build automatically pulls everything in for me. The only other thing I need is the init script. So I get the benefit of hand crafting everything with the ease of automated building. Are you saying your kernel build automatically rebuilds your initramfs for you? I'm using dracut now and I'm looking for a way to automate the rebuild and installation of the initramfs image. I have them manually symlinked in /boot to /boot/initramfs.img and /boot/initramgs.img.old, to match the vmlinuz and vmlinuz.old symlinks from `make install`. Unfortunately I have to manage those by hand, now, or the initramfs images get out of sync. I guess I could write my own shell script to do it but is there an existing mechanism to hook into for this? --Mike
RE: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
From: Dale [mailto:rdalek1...@gmail.com] Thing is, I can't get dracut to boot a system as I use it. See my other post. Right now, my plan is to mask udev at what it is and either switch to another distro, hope someone figures out why dracut isn't working or just move everything to / and hope it doesn't ever screw up right after I go to bed and full up / with errors in the messages file. I had this happen once. Having /var on it's own partition was the only thing that saved my butt. Ok, silly question time: if this is a concern for you, why not leave /var on its own partition? Just merge / and /usr and leave it at that? --Mike
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
Hi, Mike. On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 03:56:01PM -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote: From: c...@chrekh.se [mailto:c...@chrekh.se] Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk writes: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:26:46 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: As you move more and more software off of /usr into / you start to realize that the idea of tiny partition that contains just what I need to boot and mount /usr is becoming not so tiny anymore. The distinction between what is boot software versus user software gets less clear. Again, isn't this the same for an initramfs? No, because an initramfs only needs enough to mount / and /usr, then everything else comes from the usual source. If you're not using and fancy block devices, the initramfs only needs busybox and an init script. Even adding LVM, RAID and encryption only requires three more binaries - and those are all disposed of once switch_root is run and the tmpfs released. The question remains. If it's possible to do that from an initramfs, then shouldn't it be possible to put the same tools and binarias on /, and mount /usr early? I don't think you've understood the question - you certainly haven't answered it. Yes , of course it's /possible/, it's just not /practical/. Why not? Changing the contents of your initramfs is a decision you, as an admin, make that affects your system(s). s%initramfs%/sbin%, then how does the sentence not apply? Changing the installed location of, say, udevd and bluetoothd and whatever other tools need to get pulled out of /usr is a decision that affects everyone who is using those packages. Changing the order of init scripts is an even bigger mess, but mostly because of the software requirements to make it function. That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to copy (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs - the exact same programs, modulo noise - to have the SW in /sbin necessary to mount /usr. Our loveable upstream suppliers are making us mount /usr early in the boot process. Why can't this be done as well from /sbin as from initramfs? [ ] --Mike -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to copy (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs - the exact same programs, modulo noise - to have the SW in /sbin necessary to mount /usr. Your package manager only knows about the copy in the original location. When you update you'll have multiple versions of the same program or library in your path. -- Neil Bothwick In space, no one can hear you fart. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Mark Knecht wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP I like, even love, Gentoo. Thing is, if it gets to where it doesn't work like it should for me, there's no point in me using it. If I wanted a OS that doesn't work well for me, I'd be buying M$'s crap. Hey, it does install fairly fast but it is pretty crappy. LOL What? Me worry? Chill Dale. The Gentoo devs will get it there. And what will you do if Ubuntu doesn't boot? Learn another distro? Nahh... ;-) - Mark That's why I want something that I can install fast. Gentoo certainly isn't the right choice for that. If Kubuntu fails, I can just reinstall and not format /home. It doesn't take to long and I'll be back up and running. I already keep a fairly up to date sysrescue so having something for some other distro wouldn't be a huge issue. Right now, if Gentoo fails to boot because of the init thingy, I have no idea how to fix it. None at all. I know the basics of what it does but no idea how to fix it when it breaks. That's where I am now with regard to my other post. I can't su to root when using the init thingy but can when I don't use the init thingy. I have no clue where to even start to fix it. Is it dracut itself? Is it some script? Is it some option I gave it that conflicts with something else? I have absolutely no idea why but I know it has something to do with me using the init thingy since it works fine without it. Me clueless since this is something I tried to avoid in the past and not sure why it is needed now either. More questions than answers for sure. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 + Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to copy (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs - the exact same programs, modulo noise - to have the SW in /sbin necessary to mount /usr. Two words: shared libraries Copying binaries is not enough. You have to find and copy every shared library those binaries use. Plus all the data and other files they might need. This is non-trivial. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:43:38 -0500 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Knecht wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP I like, even love, Gentoo. Thing is, if it gets to where it doesn't work like it should for me, there's no point in me using it. If I wanted a OS that doesn't work well for me, I'd be buying M$'s crap. Hey, it does install fairly fast but it is pretty crappy. LOL What? Me worry? Chill Dale. The Gentoo devs will get it there. And what will you do if Ubuntu doesn't boot? Learn another distro? Nahh... ;-) - Mark That's why I want something that I can install fast. Gentoo certainly isn't the right choice for that. If Kubuntu fails, I can just reinstall and not format /home. It doesn't take to long and I'll be back up and running. I already keep a fairly up to date sysrescue so having something for some other distro wouldn't be a huge issue. See this mountain peak you think you see in front of you? The one you call Everest? You got it wrong about that mountain Dale. It's a little mole hill in the back yard. Make / big enough to contain /usr as well. Move stuff over and delete the /usr partition. Everything you fear about udev instantly ceases to exist and is no longer a problem. Sorted. Right now, if Gentoo fails to boot because of the init thingy, I have no idea how to fix it. None at all. I know the basics of what it does but no idea how to fix it when it breaks. That's where I am now with regard to my other post. I can't su to root when using the init thingy but can when I don't use the init thingy. I have no clue where to even start to fix it. Is it dracut itself? Is it some script? Is it some option I gave it that conflicts with something else? I have absolutely no idea why but I know it has something to do with me using the init thingy since it works fine without it. Me clueless since this is something I tried to avoid in the past and not sure why it is needed now either. More questions than answers for sure. Dale :-) :-) -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Mark Knecht wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP Right now, my plan is to mask udev at what it is and either switch to another distro SNIP Just remember, with distros it's the device you know for the devil you don't know... I don't understand why any of this /usr /udev stuff is bothering you. Do you really use a separate /usr? Aren't you on stable like me or are you on ~amd64? Good luck. I'm positive you'll come to your senses about this Ubuntu nonsense! ;-))) Cheers, Mark My plan was to put / on ext4, /boot on ext2 and everything else on LVM. That would incluse /usr, /usr/portage, /var and /home. I have not done that yet because doing it would force me to make a choice very soon since this mess is coming pretty soon. The reason it is bothering me is because of the mess it is creating for me. If I am the only one it bothers, then maybe it is time for me to use something else. That way everyone else can be happy and not have to listen to me grumble about it. I would like to make this work and have been missing with it for a month at least. I'm not making any progress tho. Right now, given the issues that I am already having, this is looking to be a deal breaker. It reminds me of when my ex kept lying to me about things. I can deal with it for a while but at some point you have to decide if it is something you want to put up with or time to leave. I left my ex, that's why she is called my ex. I didn't like making the decision since we had a lot of other things in common but I hate being lied to even worse. I like Gentoo a lot but it may not work for what I want in the near future. Also, this makes me thing back to hal. The only things is, there were ways to get rid of hal. There is not many options on this mess. If I'm going to make this work, it's going to have to be a long term solution, supporting /var on a separate partition as well. That will be next I suspect. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Mike Edenfield wrote: From: Dale [mailto:rdalek1...@gmail.com] Thing is, I can't get dracut to boot a system as I use it. See my other post. Right now, my plan is to mask udev at what it is and either switch to another distro, hope someone figures out why dracut isn't working or just move everything to / and hope it doesn't ever screw up right after I go to bed and full up / with errors in the messages file. I had this happen once. Having /var on it's own partition was the only thing that saved my butt. Ok, silly question time: if this is a concern for you, why not leave /var on its own partition? Just merge / and /usr and leave it at that? --Mike Post crossing but I wanted to put / on ext4, /boot on ext2 and everything else on LVM. I been wanting to do that for a long while but wanted to learn LVM pretty well first. I'm trying to learn this init thingy to but it's not working to well so far. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP Right now, if Gentoo fails to boot because of the init thingy, I have no idea how to fix it. None at all. I understand. My question is why are you even using the initrd? There's no requirement to use it today, at least on stable. There's not even a discussion I've seen that says we _ever_ have to use it if we don't use a separate /usr, so I'm not understanding where the problem is. This is just my 2 cents, but assuming you have a lot of disk space why not do a second Gentoo install, use initrd there to learn about it, and just STOP doing updates to your current environment. If you don't update it then it's not going to fail due to an update, right? I'm not picking on you or anything like that. It just seems to me that you're worrying about the worst instead of doing the easiest. Let's let the heavy lifters do some work, watch people get through it, and only then decide what to do. No reason to cause problems with our systems. I've masked a few packages and am being careful about updates. Good luck, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
Hello, Neil. On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to copy (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs - the exact same programs, modulo noise - to have the SW in /sbin necessary to mount /usr. Your package manager only knows about the copy in the original location. So? The same applies to a copy in the initramfs. When you update you'll have multiple versions of the same program or library in your path. Well, with the manual/script copying which needs doing either for /sbin or initramfs, that will be several copies of a program, not several versions. I'm still trying to see the reason why an /sbin with the same contents as a putative initramfs won't work. -- Neil Bothwick -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:59:30 -0500 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Knecht wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP Right now, my plan is to mask udev at what it is and either switch to another distro SNIP Just remember, with distros it's the device you know for the devil you don't know... I don't understand why any of this /usr /udev stuff is bothering you. Do you really use a separate /usr? Aren't you on stable like me or are you on ~amd64? Good luck. I'm positive you'll come to your senses about this Ubuntu nonsense! ;-))) Cheers, Mark My plan was to put / on ext4, /boot on ext2 and everything else on LVM. That would incluse /usr, /usr/portage, /var and /home. I have not done that yet because doing it would force me to make a choice very soon since this mess is coming pretty soon. That's easy to fix. It takes a while and it's mind-numbingly boring, but it's easy. All you need is a decent amount of free disk space as you will shuffle things around just like in that 15 pieces game. Assuming / is the first (or second) partition on a disk: Measure how much data is on the file system. Measure how much data is on the /usr file system. Move partitions after / on the disk out of the way creating enough free space to contain current / and /usr. Enlarge / partition, enlarge the file system on it, copy contents of /usr there. Arrange the rest of your disk the way you want it (either with or without LVM, both are easy enough to do). Move the rest of your data back to it's final destination. Delete any last remnants of the old /usr partition. And all your worries about initramfs will go away. Trust me (no, not because I sell used cars, but because I do this for a living and have done it several times) -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Alan McKinnon wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:43:38 -0500 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Knecht wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP I like, even love, Gentoo. Thing is, if it gets to where it doesn't work like it should for me, there's no point in me using it. If I wanted a OS that doesn't work well for me, I'd be buying M$'s crap. Hey, it does install fairly fast but it is pretty crappy. LOL What? Me worry? Chill Dale. The Gentoo devs will get it there. And what will you do if Ubuntu doesn't boot? Learn another distro? Nahh... ;-) - Mark That's why I want something that I can install fast. Gentoo certainly isn't the right choice for that. If Kubuntu fails, I can just reinstall and not format /home. It doesn't take to long and I'll be back up and running. I already keep a fairly up to date sysrescue so having something for some other distro wouldn't be a huge issue. See this mountain peak you think you see in front of you? The one you call Everest? You got it wrong about that mountain Dale. It's a little mole hill in the back yard. Make / big enough to contain /usr as well. Move stuff over and delete the /usr partition. Everything you fear about udev instantly ceases to exist and is no longer a problem. Sorted. But what about using LVM? People was all for me using it a while back and I want to use it, see other post, but now because of this, I'm not supposed to. Look left, look right, look left, look right. Get the idea? ROFL Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Mark Knecht wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP Right now, if Gentoo fails to boot because of the init thingy, I have no idea how to fix it. None at all. I understand. My question is why are you even using the initrd? There's no requirement to use it today, at least on stable. There's not even a discussion I've seen that says we _ever_ have to use it if we don't use a separate /usr, so I'm not understanding where the problem is. This is just my 2 cents, but assuming you have a lot of disk space why not do a second Gentoo install, use initrd there to learn about it, and just STOP doing updates to your current environment. If you don't update it then it's not going to fail due to an update, right? I'm not picking on you or anything like that. It just seems to me that you're worrying about the worst instead of doing the easiest. Let's let the heavy lifters do some work, watch people get through it, and only then decide what to do. No reason to cause problems with our systems. I've masked a few packages and am being careful about updates. Good luck, Mark Right now it won't be a problem but when I get my set up like I want it, it will be. I'm trying to learn it on a system that doesn't care right now. As posted elsewhere, if I boot with the init thingy then I can't su to root. My solution right now was to boot without the init thingy. However, if I get to where I can set up my system like I want, that would be a problem for me. This is holding me back from doing several things on my system and one of them is using LVM for everything but / and /boot. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
Hi, Alan. On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 + Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to copy (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs - the exact same programs, modulo noise - to have the SW in /sbin necessary to mount /usr. Two words: shared libraries Copying binaries is not enough. You have to find and copy every shared library those binaries use. Plus all the data and other files they might need. This is non-trivial. silently screams. It's equally non-trivial for initramfs, yet nobody seems to be raising this objection for that. Why is nobody else on this thread willing to take up its main point, the exact equivalence between the known, ugly, initramfs solution and the as yet half-baked idea of putting the same binaries into /sbin? -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:01:28 + Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: Hello, Neil. On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to copy (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs - the exact same programs, modulo noise - to have the SW in /sbin necessary to mount /usr. Your package manager only knows about the copy in the original location. So? The same applies to a copy in the initramfs. No it doesn't. The initramfs is a transient file system contained within a single file. To the package manager, it is just a file, one with a rather unique name that portage is highly unlikely to try and overwrite. Copying binaries into / means you are copying a large number of files into an area managed by the package manager. Those files have names and locations that are rather likely to be used by ebuilds. Do we really have to spell out to you why this is a bad idea? When you update you'll have multiple versions of the same program or library in your path. Well, with the manual/script copying which needs doing either for /sbin or initramfs, that will be several copies of a program, not several versions. Your copies will be used in preference to the originals in /usr. You will have to detect this yourself when this occurs and re-copy them and portage cannot help you. Remember the primary difference between / and an initramfs: The initramfs is transient and it's contents are not available to confuse the system once early boot is over. / is a permanent file system that is always around, and always there to confuse the issue. This is not a small trivial issue, it is huge, and a magnificent bug-injection system. I'm still trying to see the reason why an /sbin with the same contents as a putative initramfs won't work. Oh, it will work for booting all right. It's the issues it will cause after booting when it should no longer be there that is the problem. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:31:06 -0500 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Alan McKinnon wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:59:30 -0500 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Knecht wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP Right now, my plan is to mask udev at what it is and either switch to another distro SNIP Just remember, with distros it's the device you know for the devil you don't know... I don't understand why any of this /usr /udev stuff is bothering you. Do you really use a separate /usr? Aren't you on stable like me or are you on ~amd64? Good luck. I'm positive you'll come to your senses about this Ubuntu nonsense! ;-))) Cheers, Mark My plan was to put / on ext4, /boot on ext2 and everything else on LVM. That would incluse /usr, /usr/portage, /var and /home. I have not done that yet because doing it would force me to make a choice very soon since this mess is coming pretty soon. That's easy to fix. It takes a while and it's mind-numbingly boring, but it's easy. All you need is a decent amount of free disk space as you will shuffle things around just like in that 15 pieces game. Assuming / is the first (or second) partition on a disk: Measure how much data is on the file system. Measure how much data is on the /usr file system. Move partitions after / on the disk out of the way creating enough free space to contain current / and /usr. Enlarge / partition, enlarge the file system on it, copy contents of /usr there. Arrange the rest of your disk the way you want it (either with or without LVM, both are easy enough to do). Move the rest of your data back to it's final destination. Delete any last remnants of the old /usr partition. And all your worries about initramfs will go away. Trust me (no, not because I sell used cars, but because I do this for a living and have done it several times) Right now, I doubt my current / partition can hold all the /usr stuff. It would require a complete undoing then redoing, like you just laid out. I have done this before but I would like to only have to do it once and be done. That is why I want to use LVM for everything but / but if I could get this to work right, I wouldn't mind having / on LVM too. / on LVM isn't all that useful, simply because it's size doesn't change much and there's no real need to grow it. It's not like /var. Binary distros put LVm on / not because it's a good idea but because they like to have consistency. You don't need that because you know what you built and it doesn't need to be supported by a corporate employee far away. You are worrying yourself needlessly about this init thing. Just take some small measures to ensure that it will never be a factor. Right now, I have very little confidence in this init thingy and me getting it to work much less able to fix it even it doesn't boot for some reason. sighs Dale :-) :-) -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Knecht wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP Right now, if Gentoo fails to boot because of the init thingy, I have no idea how to fix it. None at all. I understand. My question is why are you even using the initrd? There's no requirement to use it today, at least on stable. There's not even a discussion I've seen that says we _ever_ have to use it if we don't use a separate /usr, so I'm not understanding where the problem is. This is just my 2 cents, but assuming you have a lot of disk space why not do a second Gentoo install, use initrd there to learn about it, and just STOP doing updates to your current environment. If you don't update it then it's not going to fail due to an update, right? I'm not picking on you or anything like that. It just seems to me that you're worrying about the worst instead of doing the easiest. Let's let the heavy lifters do some work, watch people get through it, and only then decide what to do. No reason to cause problems with our systems. I've masked a few packages and am being careful about updates. Good luck, Mark Right now it won't be a problem but when I get my set up like I want it, it will be. I'm trying to learn it on a system that doesn't care right now. As posted elsewhere, if I boot with the init thingy then I can't su to root. My solution right now was to boot without the init thingy. However, if I get to where I can set up my system like I want, that would be a problem for me. This is holding me back from doing several things on my system and one of them is using LVM for everything but / and /boot. Dale I understand. Like they say 'in war all the plans change when you fire the first bullet'. Just make new plans. Do the easy thing for awhile. Do nothing. Just read, watch, learn but most important don't do updates. Just wait. Patience is a virtue! Cheers, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:01:28 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Your package manager only knows about the copy in the original location. So? The same applies to a copy in the initramfs. No it does not. the initramfs is built using the versions installed on your system, and unloaded as soon as root is switched to /. At no time are two different versions available in your path. When you update you'll have multiple versions of the same program or library in your path. Well, with the manual/script copying which needs doing either for /sbin or initramfs, that will be several copies of a program, not several versions. Multiple copies of the same version is inefficient, multiple versions is potentially disastrous. I'm still trying to see the reason why an /sbin with the same contents as a putative initramfs won't work. You seem to be trying very hard to ignore the point that the initramfs does not need to contain as much as /usr or even /. It only needs to contain the files required to mount / and /usr. this can be as few as 2, busybox and the init script. Even with encrypted filesystems on LVM volumes running on RAID, this box's initramfs contains only 5 files. % grep file /usr/src/init.cfg file /bin/busybox /bin/busybox 755 0 0 file /sbin/lvm.static /sbin/lvm.static 755 0 0 file /sbin/mdadm /sbin/mdadm 755 0 0 file /sbin/cryptsetup /sbin/cryptsetup 755 0 0 file /init /usr/src/init.sh 755 0 0 -- Neil Bothwick Press Return to Continue - known as The Mail Menupause. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:35:44 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Why is nobody else on this thread willing to take up its main point, the exact equivalence between the known, ugly, initramfs solution and the as yet half-baked idea of putting the same binaries into /sbin? Bewause everyone else realises they are in no way equivalent, or even comparable? -- Neil Bothwick Access denied--nah nah na nah nah! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:35:44 + Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: Hi, Alan. On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 + Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to copy (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs - the exact same programs, modulo noise - to have the SW in /sbin necessary to mount /usr. Two words: shared libraries Copying binaries is not enough. You have to find and copy every shared library those binaries use. Plus all the data and other files they might need. This is non-trivial. silently screams. It's equally non-trivial for initramfs, yet nobody seems to be raising this objection for that. Why is nobody else on this thread willing to take up its main point, the exact equivalence between the known, ugly, initramfs solution and the as yet half-baked idea of putting the same binaries into /sbin? Read my other mail and pay attention to the difference between transient and persistent. initramfs is an elegant engineering solution (albeit over-engineered for our specific case of being Gentoo users). Your questions are about an extremely ill-advised action that has no sound basis. It copies stuff around to make one very specific thing work but with zero consideration for what it will do to everything else. That is bad, bad engineering. If you want all this stuff in /, then do it correctly and modify the ebuilds to put the originals there (and troubleshoot the fallout from other faulty hard-coded stuffs). This is a lot of work, but it is sound. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:43:38 -0500, Dale wrote:
That's why I want something that I can install fast. Gentoo certainly
isn't the right choice for that. If Kubuntu fails, I can just reinstall
and not format /home.
That's why ${DEITY} gave us backups: no need to reinstall just roll back
to the last working version. Even if your backup is a couple of weeks
old, it with be more up to date than any distro CD.
Right now, if Gentoo fails to boot because of the init thingy, I have no
idea how to fix it. None at all. I know the basics of what it does but
no idea how to fix it when it breaks. That's where I am now with regard
to my other post. I can't su to root when using the init thingy but can
when I don't use the init thingy. I have no clue where to even start to
fix it.
Why not post the details of it? All an initramfs is is an init script and
a few binaries. Extract the init script, the initramfs file is a plain
cpio archive, and post it here.
Me clueless since this is something I tried to avoid in the past and not
sure why it is needed now either.
Because upstream decided to work this way to avoid the problems caused by
the anachronistic separation of / and /usr. This is not so much a
decision by the udev devs as an acceptance that the current filesystem
organisation was becoming ever more unworkable in the general case.
--
Neil Bothwick
Self-explanatory: technospeak for Incomprehensible undocumented
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
Hello again, Alan. On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:39:27AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:01:28 + Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: Hello, Neil. On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to copy (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs - the exact same programs, modulo noise - to have the SW in /sbin necessary to mount /usr. Your package manager only knows about the copy in the original location. So? The same applies to a copy in the initramfs. No it doesn't. The initramfs is a transient file system contained within a single file. To the package manager, it is just a file, one with a rather unique name that portage is highly unlikely to try and overwrite. Copying binaries into / means you are copying a large number of files into an area managed by the package manager. Those files have names and locations that are rather likely to be used by ebuilds. Ah. I was looking forward to the sad time when package managers will be installing things exclusively on /usr. Well, OK, on /etc too, but certainly not to /sbin (which will probably have been abolished). Do we really have to spell out to you why this is a bad idea? No, I can get that. ;-) When you update you'll have multiple versions of the same program or library in your path. Well, with the manual/script copying which needs doing either for /sbin or initramfs, that will be several copies of a program, not several versions. Your copies will be used in preference to the originals in /usr. You will have to detect this yourself when this occurs and re-copy them and portage cannot help you. I was thinking of using /sbin for booting, then removing it from $PATH as soon as /usr gets mounted. Remember the primary difference between / and an initramfs: The initramfs is transient and it's contents are not available to confuse the system once early boot is over. / is a permanent file system that is always around, and always there to confuse the issue. OK. I take /sbin off $PATH, like I said above. This is not a small trivial issue, it is huge, and a magnificent bug-injection system. OK2. I don't like BI systems. I'm still trying to see the reason why an /sbin with the same contents as a putative initramfs won't work. Oh, it will work for booting all right. It's the issues it will cause after booting when it should no longer be there that is the problem. We're going to be stuck with some issues anyway, no matter how we cope with things. At the moment, I've got my /usr on RAID1, which I think doubles up the speed things load at. (It's on LVM2 too, but that's by the way.) I really don't want a fragile initramfs. Sooner or later, I'd put some slight glitch into it and the result would be a dead PC. Either that or I'll be scared stiff of touching it, which isn't how a Gentoo user is supposed to be. Do I really want to take my /usr off RAID1, just so I can amalgamate it with /? There's no getting round duplicating executables once the single /usr crowd have got their way. The only question is where you put the duplicates, and how you make sure they don't foul things up. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:43:38 -0500, Dale wrote:
That's why I want something that I can install fast. Gentoo certainly
isn't the right choice for that. If Kubuntu fails, I can just reinstall
and not format /home.
That's why ${DEITY} gave us backups: no need to reinstall just roll back
to the last working version. Even if your backup is a couple of weeks
old, it with be more up to date than any distro CD.
I don't have the space for a backup, certainly not a full back up of
even just the OS. I might could do one without all the KDE and other
extras but that's not a whole lot better than just reinstalling. I keep
copies of /etc and my world file on a stick thingy.
Right now, if Gentoo fails to boot because of the init thingy, I have no
idea how to fix it. None at all. I know the basics of what it does but
no idea how to fix it when it breaks. That's where I am now with regard
to my other post. I can't su to root when using the init thingy but can
when I don't use the init thingy. I have no clue where to even start to
fix it.
Why not post the details of it? All an initramfs is is an init script and
a few binaries. Extract the init script, the initramfs file is a plain
cpio archive, and post it here.
I did post it a week or so ago in another thread. I thought it was a
KDE issue at first since I first noticed it in KDE. After a few other
tests, I found out it did the same outside of KDE. I went back to see
what was updated and didn't find anything that I thought could cause
such a thing so I thought I would try a older kernel, with no init
thingy. It worked. Then I tried the exact same kernel as I was using
before but removed the init options. It worked then. So far the only
way I can get it to fail is to boot with the inti thingy. That is even
tho I used the exact same kernel. Confuses me too.
Me clueless since this is something I tried to avoid in the past and not
sure why it is needed now either.
Because upstream decided to work this way to avoid the problems caused by
the anachronistic separation of / and /usr. This is not so much a
decision by the udev devs as an acceptance that the current filesystem
organisation was becoming ever more unworkable in the general case.
Yea, I know all that. They are breaking one thing to fix something else
so that they don't have to deal with fixing what they broke. I got that
a long time ago. ;-)
When I reboot, I'll use the init thingy and post all this in a new thread.
Dale
:-) :-)
--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!
Miss the compile output? Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
Alan McKinnon wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:31:06 -0500 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Alan McKinnon wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:59:30 -0500 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Knecht wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP Right now, my plan is to mask udev at what it is and either switch to another distro SNIP Just remember, with distros it's the device you know for the devil you don't know... I don't understand why any of this /usr /udev stuff is bothering you. Do you really use a separate /usr? Aren't you on stable like me or are you on ~amd64? Good luck. I'm positive you'll come to your senses about this Ubuntu nonsense! ;-))) Cheers, Mark My plan was to put / on ext4, /boot on ext2 and everything else on LVM. That would incluse /usr, /usr/portage, /var and /home. I have not done that yet because doing it would force me to make a choice very soon since this mess is coming pretty soon. That's easy to fix. It takes a while and it's mind-numbingly boring, but it's easy. All you need is a decent amount of free disk space as you will shuffle things around just like in that 15 pieces game. Assuming / is the first (or second) partition on a disk: Measure how much data is on the file system. Measure how much data is on the /usr file system. Move partitions after / on the disk out of the way creating enough free space to contain current / and /usr. Enlarge / partition, enlarge the file system on it, copy contents of /usr there. Arrange the rest of your disk the way you want it (either with or without LVM, both are easy enough to do). Move the rest of your data back to it's final destination. Delete any last remnants of the old /usr partition. And all your worries about initramfs will go away. Trust me (no, not because I sell used cars, but because I do this for a living and have done it several times) Right now, I doubt my current / partition can hold all the /usr stuff. It would require a complete undoing then redoing, like you just laid out. I have done this before but I would like to only have to do it once and be done. That is why I want to use LVM for everything but / but if I could get this to work right, I wouldn't mind having / on LVM too. / on LVM isn't all that useful, simply because it's size doesn't change much and there's no real need to grow it. It's not like /var. Binary distros put LVm on / not because it's a good idea but because they like to have consistency. You don't need that because you know what you built and it doesn't need to be supported by a corporate employee far away. You are worrying yourself needlessly about this init thing. Just take some small measures to ensure that it will never be a factor. So throw out my plans and just do it their way? In that case, I may as well use Fedora since it sort of started there. Maybe that is what they wanted and planned. Screw everyone using a source based distro and they will just come use ours. This is starting to make me paranoid now. ROFL Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:28:17 -0500, Dale wrote about Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought: Alan McKinnon wrote: [snip] Everything you fear about udev instantly ceases to exist and is no longer a problem. Sorted. And /var ?? But what about using LVM? People was all for me using it a while back and I want to use it, see other post, but now because of this, I'm not supposed to. I promised you (plural) an easy initramfs solution a few months back. I have an initramfs image of 1.6MiB that supports LVM and mounts /usr, /var and any other LVM volume or partition you wish. I have been able to boot with it since about January (hardware issues on my development box permitting). I will release a Python script to build it from a single command in the next 10 days or 2 weeks. The real chore will be writing the documentation (as with most software development efforts). For me, the best part is its diminutive size, as my /boot partitions are only 32MiB each. The fact that it works every time should make you feel secure against whatever the udev developers can throw at us. -- Regards, Dave [RLU #314465] *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* dwn...@ntlworld.com (David W Noon) *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
David W Noon wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:28:17 -0500, Dale wrote about Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought: Alan McKinnon wrote: [snip] Everything you fear about udev instantly ceases to exist and is no longer a problem. Sorted. And /var ?? But what about using LVM? People was all for me using it a while back and I want to use it, see other post, but now because of this, I'm not supposed to. I promised you (plural) an easy initramfs solution a few months back. I have an initramfs image of 1.6MiB that supports LVM and mounts /usr, /var and any other LVM volume or partition you wish. I have been able to boot with it since about January (hardware issues on my development box permitting). I will release a Python script to build it from a single command in the next 10 days or 2 weeks. The real chore will be writing the documentation (as with most software development efforts). For me, the best part is its diminutive size, as my /boot partitions are only 32MiB each. The fact that it works every time should make you feel secure against whatever the udev developers can throw at us. The reason I want to use dracut is because that is what is supposed to be supported by Gentoo. I also read where others have used it with no problems. I was also hoping to learn how it works, or is supposed to work, so that if something happens I can figure out a fix for it. So far, I broke it. lol I know genkernel is another approach but I just learned to hate that a long time ago. While not as bad as hal, it's a close second. I might also add, mine does boot, it's just that the system doesn't work right when I do boot with it. From what I understand, it doesn't make sense as to why it doesn't work. In a way what it does is really simple. Mount /, then mount /usr and whatever else, then switch to the new / and boot. I have no idea why that makes me unable to su to root. From what I have read, once it does the switch root thing, it's done and should work the same. Well, I'm going to go have a good soak in the tub on this mess. Sooth my nerves a bit. :/ Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 18:18 +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote: Dracut is masked on ~amd64. Bugs me, as I'd rather use something like I love genkernel, it just makes life so much easier, you don't have enter every command manually. And still keeps it the gentoo-way: you can configure everything so that it does exactly what you wan't. Just take a look at /etc/genkernel.conf genkernel can do even more stuff for you. For example include a copy of /etc/mdadm.conf into your initramfs so that the initramfs can mount your software raid (even with metadata higher than 0.90 :) - this is where the kernel raid auto assembly fails). Or enable a splash theme for a graphical boot - if you like that sort of thing. I'm sure you're gonna love it to after you have used it for some time. There are two problems with genkernel - historicly it was greeted with enthusiasm ... until you got an unbootable system which with early versions happened all too often - thats why I dropped it and have only just started to experiment with it again because of the /usr changes. Secondly, it handles only simple cases and cant do (for instance) in-kernel suspend to disk without manual intervention - there are probably a number of other cases too. BillK
[gentoo-user] Getting better logging for genkernel/initramfs stage
Is it possible to get an initramfs from genkernel to log its messages somewhere as well as the console? - I am getting a failure to mount /usr and from the few seconds the error message is on the the screen I cant see why as the parameters it prints look good, so I am looking for a way to go back and examine it in slow time. The initramfs messages done appear in dmesg or /var/log/messages. BillK
RE: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
From: Alan Mackenzie [mailto:a...@muc.de] Hi, Alan. On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 + Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to copy (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs - the exact same programs, modulo noise - to have the SW in /sbin necessary to mount /usr. Two words: shared libraries Copying binaries is not enough. You have to find and copy every shared library those binaries use. Plus all the data and other files they might need. This is non-trivial. silently screams. It's equally non-trivial for initramfs, yet nobody seems to be raising this objection for that. Why is nobody else on this thread willing to take up its main point, the exact equivalence between the known, ugly, initramfs solution and the as yet half-baked idea of putting the same binaries into /sbin? Well, for one, the initramfs solution is not generally considered ugly except by a select vocal few who object to it on vague, unarticulated grounds. That notwithstanding: The binaries on the initramfs are not always the same as the ones installed in the system; frequently they are statically linked versions, or stripped-down versions, or otherwise unsuitable for being used after the full system is booted. (Dracut, for example, forces you to add USE=static-libs to a lot of the packages it wants to put into your initramfs image.) Putting those binaries into the execution path of the system is a bad idea because you don't always them to run once the system has booted -- I want the full set of udev rules, not the bare handful that my initramfs has on it. You could fix this by arranging for them to be put somewhere outside the normal path, where they can be found by the init system at boot-time but then ignored once /usr was up. This would also mean managing two copies of these packages on your system, which means the package manager would need to ensure that both static and dynamic versions, or full and minimal version, or whatever else, were built and installed in the correct locations. And this is ignoring the possible side-effects of reordering the boot scripts to unilaterally try to mount /usr very early; I don't know what, if any, those would be but someone would need to figure those out. The initramfs solution doesn't change the order of boot scripts, so people who are not using one see no change. Again, this is all *possible*. It is one option for solving the missing-/usr-at-boot problem, it is just not the option that has taken hold in the community. The people who are writing the software consider an initramfs a more elegant, cleaner, *less* ugly solution that what you are proposing, in the context of a general-purpose solution suitable for the most number of users. As they are the ones doing all the work, they get to make that call. The fact that most of us seem to agree with, or at least not actively disagree with, that opinion is just an added bonus. Your solution would be equally as successful at solving the problem, once someone put in the effort to actually make it work, make it repeatable, make it stable, and document/automate it for others to use. All of those steps have /already happened/ for an initramfs, so until someone comes up with a concrete reason why initramfs will not work, there is absolutely no motivation to waste time on anything else. --Mike
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Mike Edenfield kut...@kutulu.org wrote: From: Alan Mackenzie [mailto:a...@muc.de] Hi, Alan. On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 + Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to copy (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs - the exact same programs, modulo noise - to have the SW in /sbin necessary to mount /usr. Two words: shared libraries Copying binaries is not enough. You have to find and copy every shared library those binaries use. Plus all the data and other files they might need. This is non-trivial. silently screams. It's equally non-trivial for initramfs, yet nobody seems to be raising this objection for that. Why is nobody else on this thread willing to take up its main point, the exact equivalence between the known, ugly, initramfs solution and the as yet half-baked idea of putting the same binaries into /sbin? Well, for one, the initramfs solution is not generally considered ugly except by a select vocal few who object to it on vague, unarticulated grounds. That notwithstanding: The binaries on the initramfs are not always the same as the ones installed in the system; frequently they are statically linked versions, or stripped-down versions, or otherwise unsuitable for being used after the full system is booted. (Dracut, for example, forces you to add USE=static-libs to a lot of the packages it wants to put into your initramfs image.) Putting those binaries into the execution path of the system is a bad idea because you don't always them to run once the system has booted -- I want the full set of udev rules, not the bare handful that my initramfs has on it. I agree with most of what you say; however, I believe you are mistaken about the static nature of the binaries in the initramfs created by dracut. I use dracut with the whole bang (plymouth, systemd, udev, you name it), and I don't have *any* of my packages compiled with static-libs. Even more, my system right now runs everything with -static-libs. I like to think (and, unless I missed something, that's in fact the truth) that my initramfs is actually more or less in sync with my running system, and I update it a lot, since it's trivial to do so with dracut. Outside of that, I agree with everything you say. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought
On Tuesday 03/27/12 21:19:00 CST, Mike Edenfield wrote: On 3/27/2012 6:36 AM, Helmut Jarausch wrote: Hi, I've been looking for simple method to create a simple initramfs to just mount the /usr partition. I've found http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Basic_initramfs_used_to_check_and_mount_/usr If this is all you need, I recommend you use dracut. The default installation (no use-flags or optional modules) will product an initramfs that loads whatever you current rootfs and /usr partitions are. I've been working on updating the wiki with more detailed instructions; for your case what's there now ought to be plenty: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Dracut This guide looks a bit more simple. It doesn't need any other tools except some basic commands. http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Initramfs -- oooO: (..): :\.(:::Oooo:: ::\_)::(..):: :::)./::: ::(_/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
