On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:42:00 -0400 Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie<a...@muc.de> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, everybody. > >>> > >>> Hope nobody minds me starting a new thread with an accurate name. > >>> > >>> Which version of udev is it that has this nauseating feature of > >>> needing /usr loaded to boot? > >>> > >>> Somewhere in that version's source will be several (or lots of) > >>> "/usr". Just how difficult is it going to be to replace > >>> "/usr/bin" with "/bin" throughout the source? > >>> > >>> udev is part of the kernel. How come the kernel hackers aren't > >>> up in arms about this as much as we are? Or are they, maybe? In > >>> which case, maybe the kernel people would welcome an option to > >>> disrequire the early mounting of /usr as much as we would. > >>> > >>> Anyhow, I'd like to take a peek at the source code which does > >>> this evil thing. Would somebody please tell me which version of > >>> udev is involved. > >>> > >>> Thanks. > >> > >> (This would be my only post in this new thread: I think I have > >> made my point of view clear in the other thread). > >> > >> I have seen a lot of disinformation going on in the other threads > >> (like some people suggesting that /var would not be able to be on > >> its own partition at some point in the future). Just before > >> everyone start to wildy conjecture, please take a look at this: > >> > >> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken > >> > >> Also, a look at this thread is maybe justified: > >> > >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/1728/ > >> > >> Both things are in the context of systemd, but it's related to the > >> discussion at hand. I know not everybody wants to use systemd, and > >> think Lennart and Kay are the root of all that is wrong and evil on > >> the world, but I will recommend everyone interested in the reasons > >> of the push for a recommended initramfs to take a look at the page > >> in fd.org, and the thread in the systemd mailing list. Even if you > >> don't agree with the reasoning, it is worth to take a look at it. > >> > >> As for me, I would say one last time my POV: Linux strives to be > >> much more than Unix, and that means do things differently. It will > >> always be capable of do anything that Unix does, and most of the > >> time it will do it better. But that doesn't (necessarily) means > >> that it will do it in the same way. > >> > >> And many of us don't take "but my config/setup/partition works > >> now" as a valid argument to restrain progress. > >> > >> Change happens. > >> > >> Regards everyone. > > > > You say it was disinformation about /var. Care to explain why me > > and one other person read the same thing? It was mentioned on > > -dev. I was pretty sure it was and then another person posted they > > read the same. So, I'm almost certain it was said at this point. > > Surely we can't both be wrong. The issue is not /var, it is /var/run. This dir can be needed early in the boot process, but cannot be mounted before /var is mounted. The solution is /run. $DEITY help us when people start finding needed crap in /var/lib and other such insanities. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
