Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On 10/17/2011 01:59 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote: On Sunday, October 16, 2011 12:33:51 PM Zac Medico wrote: If those LVM volumes require userspace tools to mount, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to use either an initramfs or a simple linuxrc approach [1] to ensure that /usr is mounted before init starts. [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729fe8.xml If this approach works, would it be an option to add this to the LVM [1] and RAID+LVM [2] pages? You can use a linuxrc instead of an initramfs as long as your root filesystem can be mounted automatically via kernel parameters, and that root filesystem contains the necessary userspace tools (like busybox and lvm) to mount everthing else that's required to be mounted before init starts. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/lvm2.xml [2] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-quickinstall.xml -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Sunday, October 16, 2011 12:33:51 PM Zac Medico wrote: On 10/16/2011 06:07 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: I don't think it's a good idea for Gentoo to encourage users to have /usr on a separate partition. We should probably remove the separate /usr partition from Code Listing 2.1: Filesystem usage example in our handbook: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=4#d oc_chap2_pre1 Well, if we want to do that then we should also update: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-quickinstall.xml Of course - that is an initramfs-less configuration, and such a thing would be nearly impossible to do with /usr on root unless you basically don't put anything of value on the LVM volumes in the first place. You could put everything but /boot on LVM and then use an initramfs. Or, you need to cover mounting /usr, /var, etc from the initramfs. And I don't think it is a good idea to NOT have a supported RAID/LVM configuration. That is hardly an edge case... If those LVM volumes require userspace tools to mount, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to use either an initramfs or a simple linuxrc approach [1] to ensure that /usr is mounted before init starts. [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729fe8.x ml If this approach works, would it be an option to add this to the LVM [1] and RAID+LVM [2] pages? [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/lvm2.xml [2] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-quickinstall.xml -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: I don't think it's a good idea for Gentoo to encourage users to have /usr on a separate partition. We should probably remove the separate /usr partition from Code Listing 2.1: Filesystem usage example in our handbook: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=4#doc_chap2_pre1 Well, if we want to do that then we should also update: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-quickinstall.xml Of course - that is an initramfs-less configuration, and such a thing would be nearly impossible to do with /usr on root unless you basically don't put anything of value on the LVM volumes in the first place. You could put everything but /boot on LVM and then use an initramfs. Or, you need to cover mounting /usr, /var, etc from the initramfs. And I don't think it is a good idea to NOT have a supported RAID/LVM configuration. That is hardly an edge case... Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40:23AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: Hi all Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm not a programmer, let alone a developer. Rather than merely ranting, I went and searched for an alternative. udev is not the problem here, please do not shoot the messenger. And read the documentation for what is going on before making statements like we have to replace udev, otherwise it comes across very foolish. Forking udev is probably not an option. The udev lead developer is a Redhat employee, and his direction seems to be to drag everybody in Redhat's direction. Our community doesn't have Redhat's billions. Since when was udev written by RedHat's billions? You do know the history of it, right? The other option is to drop udev entirely. As an example, I suggest looking at Alpine Linux http://alpinelinux.org/ It's a lightweight server-oriented distro. It uses busybox's mdev instead of udev, and some other mdev substitutes in place of standard packages. Haha, mdev, yeah right. Have fun with that... greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On 10/16/2011 06:07 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: I don't think it's a good idea for Gentoo to encourage users to have /usr on a separate partition. We should probably remove the separate /usr partition from Code Listing 2.1: Filesystem usage example in our handbook: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=4#doc_chap2_pre1 Well, if we want to do that then we should also update: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-quickinstall.xml Of course - that is an initramfs-less configuration, and such a thing would be nearly impossible to do with /usr on root unless you basically don't put anything of value on the LVM volumes in the first place. You could put everything but /boot on LVM and then use an initramfs. Or, you need to cover mounting /usr, /var, etc from the initramfs. And I don't think it is a good idea to NOT have a supported RAID/LVM configuration. That is hardly an edge case... If those LVM volumes require userspace tools to mount, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to use either an initramfs or a simple linuxrc approach [1] to ensure that /usr is mounted before init starts. [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729fe8.xml -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:06:03 -0400 Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:14:31AM -0400, Olivier Cr?te wrote We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a compelling platform that just works, forcing users to tell the computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and stupid. Eventually, that hits Mac or Windows-like levels of dictating 1 or 2 sets of choices and nothing else. If I wanted Mac or Windows, I'd be running Mac or Windows. If the developers don't deliberately make my system break if /usr and /var aren't physically on / (and no initramfs), I'm willing to do a bit of extra work to configure things my way. Speaking of tight integration, what happens if Redhat's employees make udev depend on systemd? And what happens, if GNU folks make GNU userland depend on Hurd? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:49:19 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying to impose your workflow on the rest of the world. Isn't the point here that the desktop / GNOME OS guys are trying to impose their deep integration, tight coupling workflow upon the rest of the world? What's the 'deep integration' here? AFAICS the main point here is that you want to make udev capable of guessing all your filesystem structure, and maybe even mounting it. Yeah, sounds really KISS. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
Sorry for being completely OT now, will be the only mail on this from my side... On Thursday, 13. October 2011 18:05:47 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:14:31 -0400 Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 18:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying to impose your workflow on the rest of the world. Isn't the point here that the desktop / GNOME OS guys are trying to impose their deep integration, tight coupling workflow upon the rest of the world? We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a compelling platform that just works, forcing users to tell the computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and stupid. The problem with a platform that just works is that when it doesn't work, no-one knows how to fix it. That's what's happened here: the deep integration doesn't work in the common case that /usr is on its own filesystem, but because of all the excessive coupling you're unable to fix it and so are trying to pass the blame elsewhere. The first step in fixing it is to decouple all of the horrible mess that has been making its way into the base system over the past couple of years. in what way will exherbo deal wih this mess? Are there any plans? Feel free to mail me privately and/or answer this on the user-ML, I think some of us are quite interested. Thanks, Michael
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On 15.10.2011 10:42, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: in what way will exherbo deal wih this mess? Are there any plans? We don't support /usr on a separate partition. People can, of course, do that and I'll point them to dracut for creating an initramfs. Or they can do whatever works for them. People using Exherbo are expected to be able to deal with such stuff. Best regards, Wulf signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Wulf C. Krueger w...@mailstation.de wrote: On 15.10.2011 10:42, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: in what way will exherbo deal wih this mess? Are there any plans? We don't support /usr on a separate partition. People can, of course, do that and I'll point them to dracut for creating an initramfs. Or they can do whatever works for them. People using Exherbo are expected to be able to deal with such stuff. And I believe exherbo recommends systemd as init system. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Wulf C. Krueger w...@mailstation.de wrote: On 15.10.2011 10:42, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: in what way will exherbo deal wih this mess? Are there any plans? We don't support /usr on a separate partition. People can, of course, do that and I'll point them to dracut for creating an initramfs. Or they can do whatever works for them. People using Exherbo are expected to be able to deal with such stuff. And I believe exherbo recommends systemd as init system. Yes, they do: http://exherbo.org/docs/install-guide.html o Install an init system There’s no init system in our stages. This allows you to choose whatever init system (or none) you’d like to use: - sys-apps/systemd (recommended) - modern, fast init system. Needs kernel =2.6.36-rc1. - sys-apps/baselayout - Gentoo’s old, crufty Baselayout-1. - sys-apps/upstart - Ubuntu’s init system. We don’t generally supply init scripts for this. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Saturday 15 October 2011 03:29:54 Michał Górny wrote: On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:06:03 -0400 Walter Dnes wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:14:31AM -0400, Olivier Cr?te wrote We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a compelling platform that just works, forcing users to tell the computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and stupid. Eventually, that hits Mac or Windows-like levels of dictating 1 or 2 sets of choices and nothing else. If I wanted Mac or Windows, I'd be running Mac or Windows. If the developers don't deliberately make my system break if /usr and /var aren't physically on / (and no initramfs), I'm willing to do a bit of extra work to configure things my way. Speaking of tight integration, what happens if Redhat's employees make udev depend on systemd? And what happens, if GNU folks make GNU userland depend on Hurd? with gnulib in place, they (directly) won't -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Saturday, October 15, 2011 09:29:54 AM Michał Górny wrote: On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:06:03 -0400 Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:14:31AM -0400, Olivier Cr?te wrote We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a compelling platform that just works, forcing users to tell the computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and stupid. Eventually, that hits Mac or Windows-like levels of dictating 1 or 2 sets of choices and nothing else. If I wanted Mac or Windows, I'd be running Mac or Windows. If the developers don't deliberately make my system break if /usr and /var aren't physically on / (and no initramfs), I'm willing to do a bit of extra work to configure things my way. Speaking of tight integration, what happens if Redhat's employees make udev depend on systemd? And what happens, if GNU folks make GNU userland depend on Hurd? They'll finally get to version 1.x and Hurd can be used instead of the Linux kernel if someone wants to? :) -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On 10/15/2011 01:57 AM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote: On 15.10.2011 10:42, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: in what way will exherbo deal wih this mess? Are there any plans? We don't support /usr on a separate partition. People can, of course, do that and I'll point them to dracut for creating an initramfs. Or they can do whatever works for them. People using Exherbo are expected to be able to deal with such stuff. I don't think it's a good idea for Gentoo to encourage users to have /usr on a separate partition. We should probably remove the separate /usr partition from Code Listing 2.1: Filesystem usage example in our handbook: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=4#doc_chap2_pre1 -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:12:52AM -0400, Thomas Kahle wrote https://www.xkcd.com/963/ Xorg --configure -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:12:52AM -0400, Thomas Kahle wrote https://www.xkcd.com/963/ Xorg --configure Funny, I haven't used a /etc/X11/Xorg.conf in years: negra ~ # ll /etc/X11/ total 20 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Sep 12 17:49 app-defaults -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1301 Aug 31 15:54 chooser.sh drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Sep 30 09:36 Sessions -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 923 Aug 31 15:54 startDM.sh drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 Aug 31 15:54 xinit negra ~ # It's great; it just works. And it is thanks (in great part) to udev. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:14:31AM -0400, Olivier Cr?te wrote We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a compelling platform that just works, forcing users to tell the computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and stupid. Eventually, that hits Mac or Windows-like levels of dictating 1 or 2 sets of choices and nothing else. If I wanted Mac or Windows, I'd be running Mac or Windows. If the developers don't deliberately make my system break if /usr and /var aren't physically on / (and no initramfs), I'm willing to do a bit of extra work to configure things my way. Speaking of tight integration, what happens if Redhat's employees make udev depend on systemd? -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 18:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying to impose your workflow on the rest of the world. Isn't the point here that the desktop / GNOME OS guys are trying to impose their deep integration, tight coupling workflow upon the rest of the world? We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a compelling platform that just works, forcing users to tell the computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and stupid. -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 00:40 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: Hi all Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm not a programmer, let alone a developer. Rather than merely ranting, I went and searched for an alternative. You completely misunderstand what Kay wants, what we are saying that is that you need to mount /usr at the same time as you mount /, which you can still do in your initramfs, etc. That said, we, the GNOME upstream, think that having a separate /usr is a completely stupid idea. -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
2011/10/13 Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org: We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a compelling platform that just works, forcing users to tell the computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and stupid. I'd also look at it another way. It is a lot easier to take a well-integrated platform and chop out the parts that you don't need, than to take a million pieces and build yourself an integrated platform. I think the key is to still define boundaries between the layers and interfaces such that you still can chop out parts. I think that there is a danger that we may get to a point where that becomes increasingly difficult. If KDE and Gnome were to come out with separate incompatible implementations of SysVInit, XDM, X11, and automounting then having both on the same system would no longer be a matter of just picking a session in the XDM interface. However, the vertical integration right now isn't that bad. We can deploy udev/dbus/etc and people who don't need it can just remove it without much fuss. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Thursday 13 October 2011 11:17:07 Olivier Crête wrote: That said, we, the GNOME upstream, think that having a separate /usr is a completely stupid idea. considering GNOME's track record wrt what they think is a good idea in the UI land, i'm not sure this statement is terribly compelling -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On 13 October 2011 20:58, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: 2011/10/13 Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org: We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a compelling platform that just works, forcing users to tell the computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and stupid. I'd also look at it another way. It is a lot easier to take a well-integrated platform and chop out the parts that you don't need, than to take a million pieces and build yourself an integrated platform. While it has been the way just about all platform development on Linux has taken place, what this mode of thinking ignores is that gratuitously supporting as many corner cases as you can means that you need to support a combinatorial explosion of pieces, which so far has only managed to keep our stack fragmented and an enormous pita to work with. I'm not saying we should narrow our focus too much, but every decision to support weird ways of doing things has a cost, and if you're going to support it, you (as an upstream developer) are spending time that could possibly have been spent making the whole system better. (that's to set some perspective on why things are heading the way they are, and discussing whether this is sensible or not probably is going to spin offtopic for gentoo-dev really quickly) While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the existing framework. For example, if someone cares enough, why not write a wrapper script to track down the programs and libraries at runtime that actually do use /usr so it's easier to say these packages install rules that need / and /usr on the same partition. -- Arun Raghavan http://arunraghavan.net/ (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) (arunsr | GNOME)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote: While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the existing framework. For example, if someone cares enough, why not write a wrapper script to track down the programs and libraries at runtime that actually do use /usr so it's easier to say these packages install rules that need / and /usr on the same partition. (1) udev has provided a workaround of sorts for this already: udevadm trigger --type=failed. this is the udev-postmount init.d script. (2) it's fairly trivial to locate most (all?) the failing rules with a single grep: grep /usr -R /lib/udev/rules.d/. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:14:31 -0400 Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 18:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying to impose your workflow on the rest of the world. Isn't the point here that the desktop / GNOME OS guys are trying to impose their deep integration, tight coupling workflow upon the rest of the world? We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a compelling platform that just works, forcing users to tell the computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and stupid. The problem with a platform that just works is that when it doesn't work, no-one knows how to fix it. That's what's happened here: the deep integration doesn't work in the common case that /usr is on its own filesystem, but because of all the excessive coupling you're unable to fix it and so are trying to pass the blame elsewhere. The first step in fixing it is to decouple all of the horrible mess that has been making its way into the base system over the past couple of years. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On 10/13/2011 08:02 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote: While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the existing framework. For example, if someone cares enough, why not write a wrapper script to track down the programs and libraries at runtime that actually do use /usr so it's easier to say these packages install rules that need / and /usr on the same partition. (1) udev has provided a workaround of sorts for this already: udevadm trigger --type=failed. this is the udev-postmount init.d script. (2) it's fairly trivial to locate most (all?) the failing rules with a single grep: grep /usr -R /lib/udev/rules.d/. nitpicking for (2): also /var, since that's used by alsa's udev rules (alsactl stores info there to restore mixers for eg)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote: While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the existing framework. For example, if someone cares enough, why not write a wrapper script to track down the programs and libraries at runtime that actually do use /usr so it's easier to say these packages install rules that need / and /usr on the same partition. (1) udev has provided a workaround of sorts for this already: udevadm trigger --type=failed. this is the udev-postmount init.d script. (2) it's fairly trivial to locate most (all?) the failing rules with a single grep: grep /usr -R /lib/udev/rules.d/. If this comment is true (haven't looked at the code): https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375263#c23 that trigger has been removed from udev. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote: While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the existing framework. For example, if someone cares enough, why not write a wrapper script to track down the programs and libraries at runtime that actually do use /usr so it's easier to say these packages install rules that need / and /usr on the same partition. (1) udev has provided a workaround of sorts for this already: udevadm trigger --type=failed. this is the udev-postmount init.d script. (2) it's fairly trivial to locate most (all?) the failing rules with a single grep: grep /usr -R /lib/udev/rules.d/. If this comment is true (haven't looked at the code): https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375263#c23 that trigger has been removed from udev. Answering myselef; it is gone: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commit;h=289a1821a4a7636ce42a6c7adc3a9bb49421a5ea commit 289a1821a4a7636ce42a6c7adc3a9bb49421a5ea Author: Kay Sievers kay.siev...@vrfy.org Date: Thu Oct 6 00:45:06 2011 +0200 remove 'udevadm trigger --type=failed' and SYSFS, ID, BUS keys Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Thursday 13 October 2011 14:55:45 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote: While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the existing framework. For example, if someone cares enough, why not write a wrapper script to track down the programs and libraries at runtime that actually do use /usr so it's easier to say these packages install rules that need / and /usr on the same partition. (1) udev has provided a workaround of sorts for this already: udevadm trigger --type=failed. this is the udev-postmount init.d script. (2) it's fairly trivial to locate most (all?) the failing rules with a single grep: grep /usr -R /lib/udev/rules.d/. If this comment is true (haven't looked at the code): https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375263#c23 that trigger has been removed from udev. ... which is what spurred this entire debate in the first place -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:40:23 -0400 Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: The other option is to drop udev entirely. As an example, I suggest looking at Alpine Linux http://alpinelinux.org/ It's a lightweight server-oriented distro. It uses busybox's mdev instead of udev, and some other mdev substitutes in place of standard packages. It uses openrc. Furthermore, previous versions of Alpine were based on Gentoo as per http://wiki.alpinelinux.org/wiki/Creating_an_Alpine_package so there should be no problem with us borrowing back from Alpine. Goodbye desktop users then. We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and required udev anyway) is done through udev directly. Dropping udev = dropping it all. This means that no *kit would work anymore, xorg will require explicit configuration, bluez may not work anymore as well. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 10/12/11 05:40, Walter Dnes wrote: Hi all The other option is to drop udev entirely. As an example, I suggest looking at Alpine Linux http://alpinelinux.org/ It's a lightweight server-oriented distro. It uses busybox's mdev instead of udev, and some other mdev substitutes in place of standard packages. It uses openrc. Furthermore, previous versions of Alpine were based on Gentoo as per http://wiki.alpinelinux.org/wiki/Creating_an_Alpine_package so there should be no problem with us borrowing back from Alpine. This is a joke right? All the desktop infrastructure depends on that. Are you suggesting to make Gentoo an embedded/server only distro? - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOlTzUAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LC2rAQAI9+GgYyUZqOPcL8dXa/oDJP 8zAn1w6aJfYW1MJOLlFxx48pYC4G64xencGKUGMyCKdwNGHxEYIAnLIB1fjEIwKz c5gFWjgZyOG1etDJblYtHUEdUDzqVz1EpFmyt/ASxJRsaCOTFv0NyG26tw4cumBT Gpkf/qSwENnSNo+HlMdjlqUzioiSa9afZe/4IkZRKH8NL3UOXEd8Ud605L5YDJoC uErGRamsdRP4XuNU9oB230QVHy2/7vsxZhtDJ3d22MHECF9rpdPfgmZ2zAmUe3ut /NPau8xZG/1udf6REcIZHcg8ERXMl5hO38GuYoyO8/gtxcLLcFaDVMzTzLdaoWg/ H6rB9HhbhZYy9049sPtA2VP+jfCCdriLWpi6G1/XyotgK2e0zgGUIATPskf+Ge5N Nb20Mr2fEbqTgd5SdcPDM4dq0y8at1u8WaAJDfvvy8mvEwwX42GZJK2wsMdY0x/k G85zKQm7pZNnk0V17czUcnkbO+D8Ormw/wImMLrA9KidmC2FbHgPj4qOYAR6Dsso 0i6gvgCai+y0cymTnSYM99xo4KAU/ZKcqGsNtbUKaJ1IwR3tPgGLwHb70NPZF3e5 ssxtG4Su4wo2WGfMfNcPgjTA9hbYW2JGM2s4TH9+V7BVv+wW9b7osyiplJ3f0X7l Kq7yoCCF499m/BMoTgot =cicu -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:32:05AM +, Nathan Phillip Brink wrote You can already try out what using mdev instead of udev is like in Gentoo. Just add `sys-apps/busybox mdev' to /etc/portage/package.use, remerge busybox. You must be sure to be using busybox-1.92.2 or later for bug #83301. Did you mean busybox-1.19.2? That's the latest ebuild in /usr/portage, and it's still ~amd64 (~everything for that matter). # rc-update add mdev sysinit # rc-update del udev sysinit But be 'ware that this isn't guaranteed to provide a successful boot ;-). Thanks for the idea. I have a spare box kicking around that I can try it on. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
Goodbye desktop users then. We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and required udev anyway) is done through udev directly. My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I always had sys-apps/hal and sys-apps/dbus in /etc/portage/package.mask and my system continued to work just fine, thank you. Given the great HAL fiasco, the fact that HAL has been incorporated into udev is yet one more reason for dropping udev G. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:05:15PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote Are you aware of the simple linuxrc approach that I suggested here? http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729fe8.xml Thanks for the pointer. I've got a spare box kicking around that I'll try this on. I really do want it to work. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: Forking udev is probably not an option. The udev lead developer is a Redhat employee, and his direction seems to be to drag everybody in Redhat's direction. Our community doesn't have Redhat's billions. We should note that RedHat is already spending their billions to make dracut smarter, and if initramfs is good enough for RHEL then it should be good enough for us if somebody just has to have /usr on a separate device and needs some of the fancier udev rules to work on boot. For those who don't need dracut there was already a stated desire to provide a simplified initramfs. And, for less complex setups, you don't need it at all. My concern with something like dropping udev is that it would make us different from every other desktop distro out there. I'm not aware of any distro packaging Gnome/KDE without udev. Not having Redhat's billions to me is a good reason to try to do things the same way that Redhat does them - so that we're not re-inventing the wheel. Gentoo is still a fairly meta distro and if users want to remove udev they probably can do it without a great deal of hassle if they don't want hot more hotplugish experience and don't use the big desktop environments. It just doesn't make sense to make that a default. In the same way I don't mind a list of CFLAGS that spans 3 lines but I'd never advocate putting that into the default make.conf. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
Goodbye desktop users then.
We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and
required udev anyway) is done through udev directly.
My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I
always had sys-apps/hal and sys-apps/dbus in /etc/portage/package.mask
and my system continued to work just fine, thank you.
This is not about *your* system, it's about the general Gentoo
community systems. And in most cases, the functionality that mdev
provides is not even a fraction of what udev can do, like it or not.
I have a pair of bluetooth headphones; I turn them up and set them to
pair with something, and gnome-shell in GNOME 3 right away asks me if
it's OK to pair with them. I say yes, and the headphones are
immediately available in the desktop; thanks to PulseAudio, I can
transfer all my apps (or only some of them) to the headphones, without
even needing to pause the streams.
All of this without a single modification to a config file. It just
works. And that is thanks to udev (among several other pieces of the
stack).
mdev is designed for embedded systems (like busybox). By design it
cannot handle of the cases that udev handles, and so it is not suited
for a general purpose distribution like Gentoo. If you wan to try to
use it, that's your right of course. But don't ask the Gentoo devs to
do the work for you; do it yourself. And be aware that anyway the devs
will choose to stick with udev (like many have already said), because
they have to think about the general case, not an arbitrary particular
case.
Just the .02 ${CURRENCY} from an old Gentoo user happy with systemd,
dracut, udev, dbus, GNOME 3, and other really cool new technologies.
Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:09:49 -0400 Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: Goodbye desktop users then. We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and required udev anyway) is done through udev directly. My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I always had sys-apps/hal and sys-apps/dbus in /etc/portage/package.mask and my system continued to work just fine, thank you. Given the great HAL fiasco, the fact that HAL has been incorporated into udev is yet one more reason for dropping udev G. Thanks for your insight on the topic. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: Goodbye desktop users then. We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and required udev anyway) is done through udev directly. My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I always had sys-apps/hal and sys-apps/dbus in /etc/portage/package.mask and my system continued to work just fine, thank you. Given the great HAL fiasco, the fact that HAL has been incorporated into udev is yet one more reason for dropping udev G. Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying to impose your workflow on the rest of the world. This thread is a waste of time. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying to impose your workflow on the rest of the world. Isn't the point here that the desktop / GNOME OS guys are trying to impose their deep integration, tight coupling workflow upon the rest of the world? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying to impose your workflow on the rest of the world. Isn't the point here that the desktop / GNOME OS guys are trying to impose their deep integration, tight coupling workflow upon the rest of the world? So, Gentoo is about choice and empowering the user, so I think that if somebody wants to offer patches that allow mdev to work better without adversely affecting udev use then I'd encourage devs to accept those patches. However, if Gentoo aims to make Gnome/KDE difficult to deploy with the default configuration we'll be shooting ourselves in the feet. I think a lot more people run KDE/Gnome on Gentoo than run Gentoo with /usr not on root but who are unwilling to run an initramfs. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 09:26:12 Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: Forking udev is probably not an option. The udev lead developer is a Redhat employee, and his direction seems to be to drag everybody in Redhat's direction. Our community doesn't have Redhat's billions. We should note that RedHat is already spending their billions to make dracut smarter, and if initramfs is good enough for RHEL then it should be good enough for us if somebody just has to have /usr on a separate device and needs some of the fancier udev rules to work on boot. For those who don't need dracut there was already a stated desire to provide a simplified initramfs. And, for less complex setups, you don't need it at all. i don't think this logic is that great. RHEL/Fedora do a lot of things that they consider desirable but which are simply their opinion on the topic. for a while there, they pretty much forced LVM down everyone's throat during the install. it's been a while since i last installed/maintained those distros (thankfully), but their initramfs setups were always way more flaky than they should have been and fairly difficult to recover from. the firstboot idea is another great example of things not fully thought through ahead of time. systemd is a good choice for some, but its desire to be Linux-specific and require recent kernels is a limitation. if you want to use initramfs on your system, you certainly can. if you want to do lvm/whatever rootfs, then feel free. if you want to run systemd, np. you want to add bloat with firstboot, by all means. but a Gentoo system will not require any of these things (unless you choose to customize your own system in such a way) regardless of how much money other distros throw at their own ideas. note: i'm not advocating dropping udev by default as i think it's completely unrealistic, and unlike the other projects mentioned, has been widely adopted across pretty much all distros. it also doesn't really address the *underlying* problem: package rules that require /usr to be mounted. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 09:09:24AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:32:05AM +, Nathan Phillip Brink wrote You can already try out what using mdev instead of udev is like in Gentoo. Just add `sys-apps/busybox mdev' to /etc/portage/package.use, remerge busybox. You must be sure to be using busybox-1.92.2 or later for bug #83301. Did you mean busybox-1.19.2? That's the latest ebuild in /usr/portage, and it's still ~amd64 (~everything for that matter). Yes, Oops. -- binki Look out for missing or extraneous apostrophes! pgpKZ0WR9QjLJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On 10/11/2011 09:40 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: Hi all Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm not a programmer, let alone a developer. Rather than merely ranting, I went and searched for an alternative. Are you aware of the simple linuxrc approach that I suggested here? http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729fe8.xml -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion for getting rid of udev
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40:23AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: Hi all Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm not a programmer, let alone a developer. Rather than merely ranting, I went and searched for an alternative. ... Another option is to take the current Gentoo setup, drop udev and use mdev in the same manner as Alpine uses it. In case anyone asks, auto mounting should still be possible. Attached is an excerpt from /var/log/messages from a basic Alpine install. The kernel messages were generated when I inserted a USB key into a usb jack. Seeing from the prior conversations here (sorry for lack of citation) and http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2011-September/076710.html , I suspect that the root problem isn't with udev itself but with the udev rules. The magic which makes automatic userspace configuration possible is in the udev rules and makes udev appear to be the problem. For example, if you switch to mdev currently, you will notice that X11's device autodetection doesn't work so well. (At least for me, X11's autodetection magically works for detecting input devices with udev but not with mdev). It is concievable that you could develop a parallel database of mdev-compatible rules and even let packages install rules specific to themselves (with modification to mdev http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2011-September/07.html ). With these sorts of things, you might figure out a way to make X11's device autoconfiguration work or perform other device initialization tasks. But at the same time, you have a good chance of accidentally introducing a reliance on libraries/programs installed to /usr. This latter problem is the issue, deciding how much software should have --prefix=/ versus the normal --prefix=/usr. You can already try out what using mdev instead of udev is like in Gentoo. Just add `sys-apps/busybox mdev' to /etc/portage/package.use, remerge busybox. You must be sure to be using busybox-1.92.2 or later for bug #83301. # rc-update add mdev sysinit # rc-update del udev sysinit But be 'ware that this isn't guaranteed to provide a successful boot ;-). Oct 9 13:46:00 e521 kern.info kernel: [10714.105621] usb 2-8: new high speed USB device using ehci_hcd and address 4 Oct 9 13:46:00 e521 kern.info kernel: [10714.241353] usb 2-8: New USB device found, idVendor=13fe, idProduct=1e00 Oct 9 13:46:00 e521 kern.info kernel: [10714.241357] usb 2-8: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=3 Oct 9 13:46:00 e521 kern.info kernel: [10714.241360] usb 2-8: Product: Patriot Memory Oct 9 13:46:00 e521 kern.info kernel: [10714.241362] usb 2-8: Manufacturer: Oct 9 13:46:00 e521 kern.info kernel: [10714.241364] usb 2-8: SerialNumber: 078215A302CF Oct 9 13:46:00 e521 kern.info kernel: [10714.244241] scsi4 : usb-storage 2-8:1.0 Oct 9 13:46:01 e521 kern.notice kernel: [10715.279753] scsi 4:0:0:0: Direct-Access Patriot Memory PMAP PQ: 0 ANSI: 0 CCS Oct 9 13:46:02 e521 kern.notice kernel: [10715.930991] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] 31326208 512-byte logical blocks: (16.0 GB/14.9 GiB) Oct 9 13:46:02 e521 kern.notice kernel: [10715.931980] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off Oct 9 13:46:02 e521 kern.debug kernel: [10715.931983] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] Mode Sense: 23 00 00 00 Oct 9 13:46:02 e521 kern.err kernel: [10715.931986] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] Assuming drive cache: write through Oct 9 13:46:02 e521 kern.err kernel: [10715.935986] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] Assuming drive cache: write through Oct 9 13:46:02 e521 kern.info kernel: [10715.981381] sdb: sdb1 Oct 9 13:46:02 e521 kern.err kernel: [10715.986028] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] Assuming drive cache: write through Oct 9 13:46:02 e521 kern.notice kernel: [10715.986035] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI removable disk Unless if I'm missing something, those messages _always_ show up even if udev or mdev haven't been invoked. -- binki Look out for missing or extraneous apostrophes! pgpnJRnFjxFhx.pgp Description: PGP signature
