Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
In linux.gentoo.user, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-29 4:09 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 29/09/2013 19:59, Tanstaafl wrote: I've been told that this shouldn't be a big deal... while I am a (barely) passable linux sys admin Allow me to forward an opinion. The above is not true, not even close. Don't knock yourself, you don't deserve it :-) Lol!!! At first I thought you were saying that it wasn't true that merging /usr into / shouldn't be a big deal - and I was about to start gnashing my teeth (again). Thanks Alan, your words are very kind... and I'll just leave it at that... ;) I've just changed one of my machines so that /usr is now part of the root filesystem. Like you, I had a separate /usr filesystem. Unlike you I've been running an initramfs for many years because: a) I'm running laptops and like them to have pretty graphical boot screens and no ugly writing appearing during the boot sequence. It's silly, I know, but it still looks pretty. The initramfs will start up bootsplash 8-) b) The important reason I need an initramfs is that I have my root filesystems on LVM partitions (except for my ARM servers). I've never has a scrap of trouble with the genkernel initramfs builds, despite myriad updates over the years. I've had minor niggles with display but nothing critical. So while I've run an initramfs for many years, now it has had to mount /usr before the pivot_root command. This has led to the problem that /usr is no longer able to be fscked because it is already mounted, and I cannot for the life of me, get the genkernel initramfs to fsck the /usr filesystem before mounting. I've had to manually fsck the /usr filesystem by running my minimal install CD. There are probably ways to do this (like fscking /usr on shutdown, which I couldn't get working) but I'm sick of looking for them. I've bit the bullet and changed things over. It went without a hitch. Here's what I did: I added a new LVM volume group and added a slash filesystem (10Gb), a usrsrc filesystem for my kernels (10Gb), a portage filesystem (3Gb), a distfiles filesystem (15Gb) and a packages filesystem (10Gb). Because these are on LVM they can be adjusted upwards or downwards depending on usage. I updated /etc/default/grub so that the new kernel command line will find my new slash LVM volume, and ran the grub2 installer to make the change valid. I then shut down the machine, booted my minimal install CD, used LVM to find my filesystems. I then mounted my new slash and mounted the new filesystems. I also decided to move portage, distfiles and packages to the old /var partition but to do so I first had to mount them in their old positions on /usr/portage /usr/portage/distfiles etc... Once done, I mounted the old slash and the old /usr (with included distfiles and packages and portage) then did the cp -av old hierarchy new hierarchy. It was then possible to unmount distfiles, packages and portage and then move them to /var (mount /var and mkdir /var/portage /var/distfiles and /var/packages) I altered the new slash fstab. I then rebooted without a hitch. Oh, I also had to update /etc/portage/make.conf and the make.profile symlink to reflect the change. It seems complicated but every step was logical. Having my root filesystem on LVM has made the change more complicated than it should have been, but it still was quite easy to do and downtime was minimal. I don't feel like I've been forced to do anything. I'm grateful for the Gentoo devs and their hard work over the years. This upstream change is just a small bump in the long Gentoo road. If I didn't agree with the change then it would be up to me to find a way to get my system to work without an initramfs, not the Gentoo Devs... after all, this IS open source. Be grateful that the Gentoo Devs are still willing to volunteer their time building this great distribution. -- Regards, Gregory.
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/29/13 15:03, Greg Woodbury wrote: On 09/29/2013 06:55 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: why do you bring up udev and systemd AT ALL? They are not the problem or the reason why seperate /usr is prone to break. Except that systemd *is* why a seperate /usr is broken now. Parts of the libraries that systemd depend on we *deliberately* placed in /usr despite the fact that they are needed to bbring the system to an operational state. For *years* things required to boot the system were defined to be in the root file system, and items not required until after mounting had been accomplished were to be placed in /usr. Why would someone do that? BTW: There is a standard (The File System Hierarch Standard - FSS) that existed and described this behaviour. It was killed off by deliberate vendor refusals to support or adhere to it. In frustration, the folks involved simply gave up. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSTFCYAAoJEK64IL1uI2haTGcH/06AYbco8VDCT19DIuYUyebu TYI+zK7H994uDw9JuIsglYkhtqr0kKCMl2tvEqFbUuLDr7OqKG8fjim7xyRvV472 +kPS2q8Dm3R0gkLV4pf/x+8AasHfg0cHn2jdYMraPR1HzDDN14YQL31DtEaNbVko cDsQKp+FmAruWiJNSBD6b/WXmxmmuUi8EJTGVmEYN5n5ezlbZ+y5xQQR5BUxTK8H k2n5dKqBu33OYwKQnsl21nBa1zeZyupa8me6J+7XycxDGjvkBGhgnerSskyYI0cS rbEV6sBIfX7EEMaNHa7AdaQ5UhSgkA2yuDVrjHNRLRlhpYyy2iRziug7Bx24jcg= =8rAe -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 22:36:34 -0500, Bruce Hill wrote: Do you have some alias causing df output to use -h or how does that work? % alias df df='df --human-readable --no-sync --print-type' Or, to put it another way - Yes. -- Neil Bothwick X-Modem- A device on the losing end of an encounter with lightning. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 30/09/2013 01:08, Dale wrote: At the end of they day, you don't want to learn how to do it the hard way. So do it the easy way and be done with your troubles. If you don't want to do it EITHER way fine, but stop pretending that it's anything else but a problem with your attitude. You're being exactly the kind of user that unpaid volunteer devs don't want to waste time having to support. And that is your opinon which is pretty much useless and wrong to boot. Dale, I've known you for 7 years. Now get over this init thingy thing you have going. Seriously. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 30/09/2013 01:40, Daniel Campbell wrote: The best path for you seems to be a merge of / and /usr. I asked Alan how to do this since he seemed knowledgeable about it. If he replies, maybe his advice will be handy and save you a lot of trouble. It seems clear to me that you want to avoid trouble, but looking at your options, putting /usr in / is probably the least painful thing you can do, and it won't require an initramfs. I don't like initramfs's either, but that's because I'm lazy and don't like maintaining more than two things (kernel and GRUB config) in order to boot. I think I replied so a similar question from tanstaafl already, but basically all you need to do is boot with a rescue disk, mount /usr somewhere else and copy everything in it to the usr/ directory on / But the devil is in the details and if anything will trip you up it's the extact contents you have there and how much space you have available. I don't know of any script around that automates it, so human eyeballs is what it will take. If you post the output of df -h, du -sh /usr, du -sh /usr/*, mount, and the contents of fstab, loads of folks here can tell you how to proceed. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 30/09/2013 06:14, Walter Dnes wrote: If the udev people had made net ifnames=0 the default, and allowed the small percentage of multi-nic machine admins to set net.ifnames=1, this would not have been an issue. Some corner case exotic setups require complex solutions... no ifs/ands/ors/buts. All the complaining you hear is from the other 99% who's setup worked just fine with the simple solution, suddenly finding the complex solution rammed down their throats. No, that is just plain wrong. Having interfaces on a multi-nic host come up as ethX where X is a mostly random number is just so broken it beggars belief. Trust me, it is zero fun when it happens and what makes it even worse if you have no warning at all beforehand. Go check out FreeBSD sometime and see how they number their nics, and see how it is completely reliable every single time. Check Windows for that matter, they also don't have the problem. Neither does MacOS. All that happened is that Linux and udev got dragged screaming and bitching into the 21st century wrt nic naming, and things are now in a better situation they should have been in many many years ago. But, as usual, people are resistant to change even when the change is something that does indeed need to happen. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sunday 29 September 2013 14:45:05 Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-29 2:25 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Tanstaafl wrote: The way I see it, if you cannot provide a rational answer to that question, then there is no reason for you to use this as a reason to abandon gentoo, only a reason to merge /usr into /... Simple, I have never had to resize / or /boot before. I have had to resize /usr, /var and /home several times tho. THAT is the reason. Ok, but... everything I've read and personal experience over the years shows that space required for /usr should not change much, especially constantly grow over time (like requirements for /home can and will)- it may fluctuate (increase, decrease) *a little* over time, but it definitely should not grow substantially, so, if you had to resize it, most likely it is because you simply didn't allocate enough room to start with. Then what would be a correct size for the / partition when putting /usr on there as well? I have had no issues with giving / 500MB, /boot another 500MB and have everything else with minimal values on LVM and extending partitions without rebooting the machine whenever necessary. If I am now forced to put /usr on /, detailed steps on how to migrate all my systems succesfully with minimal downtime would be appreciated. Along with a size-indication that will: 1) Always be sufficient 2) Not be a waste of valuable diskspace For me, it doesn't matter if it is rational to YOU or not. Sorry, but rationality is not subjective. Just because something seems to be rational to you doesn't mean that it is. You have still not stated a logical, rational reason for wanting a separate /usr. Dale has, and so have I, see above. I am the one doing things on my puter not you or anyone else. If the init thingy fails, that will be me staring at a error message, not you. I don't want one of those things either, but that isn't what I was questioning you about. Of course you can do whatever you want *and* are technically capable of on your own computer, but that doesn't automatically make those things logical or rational. I did see one good case for a separate /usr (someone who was using ancient PATA drives, and something about striping for performance), but that was obviously a corner case... Actually, it isn't a corner case. Striping increases performance, I use it as well. Why put all the software that I load when needed (and expect to be thrown out of memory when not used) on a single disk when you have the option to put all that on a RAID0 (striping) set? -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 00:14:08 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: seperate /usr has stopped working fine AGES AGO. Just some setups were lucky enough not to stumble over the wreckage and fall into the shards. I.e. the 99% who don't need initramfs before today. Some corner case exotic setups require complex solutions... no ifs/ands/ors/buts. All the complaining you hear is from the other 99% who's setup worked just fine with the simple solution, suddenly finding the complex solution rammed down their throats. Separate /usr is broken, maybe faulty would be a better word. It's like software bugs, not everyone hits every bug, if you don't use the buggy bits of the program. But would you rather wait until the program stopped working for you or have the bugs fixed before you ever saw them? Also consider that this is about Gentoo support for separate /usr. They are supporting it now, which means they are spending time on it that could be devoted elsewhere. Their spending that time on it may well be the reason you have been shielded from the problems caused by a separate /usr. All the news item says is that the Gentoo devs are no longer going to do that for you, and they have presented a couple of solutions. You are free to find a third path, or even continue using a separate /usr without initramfs in the hope or belief that it will not break for you. -- Neil Bothwick You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something you can ill afford... signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:36:02PM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote: And, on a personal note, I find a little quaint (and somehow naïve) to think about (for example) bluetooth as a corner case, when most of us walk with a bluetooth enabled Linux computer on our pockets. Dalvik != GNU/Linux as we know it. Exactly what percentage of cellphones is running GNU/Linux as we know it, let alone Gentoo? I want Gentoo Linux on my cellphone. And it's probably not going to happen with OpenRC. I used to laugh at Windows users who got their OS dumbed down to a useless mess, all in the name of convergence with smartphones. Now I cry along with them. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Alan McKinnon wrote: On 30/09/2013 01:08, Dale wrote: At the end of they day, you don't want to learn how to do it the hard way. So do it the easy way and be done with your troubles. If you don't want to do it EITHER way fine, but stop pretending that it's anything else but a problem with your attitude. You're being exactly the kind of user that unpaid volunteer devs don't want to waste time having to support. And that is your opinon which is pretty much useless and wrong to boot. Dale, I've known you for 7 years. Now get over this init thingy thing you have going. Seriously. Longer than that. LOL Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 30/09/2013 01:31, Daniel Campbell wrote: Curious; how is merging two filesystems done? I don't have a separate /usr and am completely unaffected by this change, but it's somewhat interesting to me. /usr stores some pretty important data on it, and I imagine you'd need to mount it somewhere else in order to move the files from it to /'s /usr dir. Is a Live environment recommended instead? How would you mitigate the leftover partition, assuming it's not adjacent to /'s partition? Because /usr is continually in use, boot using a livecd of your choice. In that environment, use fdisk (or whichever *disk you like) to make any changes to partitions you know you will need. Mount your gentoo / somewhere convenient Mount your gentoo /usr somewhere convenient copy the latter over to the former edit fstab reboot It really is just a case of moving a large number of files around, but because those very files are always in use you have to do it in livecd environment. There's no exact checklist one can follow to guarantee a 100% result blindly. Instead, as this is Gentoo, we assume users built their system knowing what they were doing and can appropriately deal with their config themselves. RAID and LVM for example may need attention, but the user is usually equipped to deal with that and knows what t do. I don't run an initramfs, thankfully, but I keep a pretty simple system in terms of filesystems: /, /boot, and /home. -- Alan McKinnon Systems Engineer^W Technician Infrastructure Services Internet Solutions +27 11 575 7585 -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:57:12AM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 18:31:37 -0500, Daniel Campbell wrote: Curious; how is merging two filesystems done? I don't have a separate /usr and am completely unaffected by this change, but it's somewhat interesting to me. /usr stores some pretty important data on it, and I imagine you'd need to mount it somewhere else in order to move the files from it to /'s /usr dir. Is a Live environment recommended instead? How would you mitigate the leftover partition, assuming it's not adjacent to /'s partition? For /usr you don't need a live CD, because the contents of /usr shouldn't change unless you instal/remove something. You can make sure they don't change during the merge by remounting read-only mount /usr -o remount,ro mkdir /newusr rsync -a /usr/ /new/usr/ Comment out /usr line in /etc/fstab mv /usr /oldusr mv /newusr /usr reboot rmdir /oldusr What you do with the old partition is up to you. In this case the discussion was about /usr on LVM, so you just delete it and allocate the space elsewhere when needed. You can even leave out the step of creating a new directory and moving it later if you bind-mount you rootfs somewhere, e.g. /mnt/gentoo. You may want to add some parameters to the call to rsync, though (e.g. those that preserve permissions, xattrs (especially for SELinux or XT-PaX) and owner/group (should be -pogX), possibly -x aswell (if you have other filesystems under /usr (e.g. a discrete FS for the portage tree). This would boil down to: mount /usr -o remout,ro # just to make sure there are no changes mount -o bind / /mnt/gentoo rsync -apogXx /usr/ /mnt/usr/ # possibly fiddle around with the flags comment out the /usr line in fstab reboot if everything's working: delete the old usr-partition (or do with it whatever you like). WKR Hinnerk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sunday 29 September 2013 19:36:32 Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:53:26 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: Precisely. And, it is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), that simply keeping your old kernel/initramfs around is NOT a guarantee (it might work - and it might NOT) of being able to fallback to a known working config until you figure it out. Installing a new kernel does not magically make the old one break. If that kernel worked yesterday, it will work today. Actually, that is not guaranteed. I remember a situation in the past where boot-critical software required a certain minimal kernel-version with specific config-settings. Without those I could not boot. Inconsistencies can, and will, happen on occasion. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sunday 29 September 2013 22:09:35 Alan McKinnon wrote: On 29/09/2013 19:59, Tanstaafl wrote: I've been told that this shouldn't be a big deal... while I am a (barely) passable linux sys admin Allow me to forward an opinion. The above is not true, not even close. Don't knock yourself, you don't deserve it :-) In my day job I get to meet many people, and vast fleets of them are paid obscene amounts of money to do sysadmin work. I have an unprintable opinion of most of these folks (I'm tired of cleaning up after them and they mess they leave). I can imagine some of those opinions, I am certain I have uttered the exact same words myself on occasion. It gets worse when those are the ones holding the root-password and refuse to give it to you, even though it is obvious I know how to do things better then they do... You on the other hand would wipe the floor with easily 95% of those clowns. Seriously. And that goes for just about everyone else on this list who has been around a while. The list thanks you :) -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:01:27 +0200, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote: mount /usr -o remount,ro mkdir /newusr rsync -a /usr/ /new/usr/ Comment out /usr line in /etc/fstab mv /usr /oldusr mv /newusr /usr reboot rmdir /oldusr What you do with the old partition is up to you. In this case the discussion was about /usr on LVM, so you just delete it and allocate the space elsewhere when needed. You can even leave out the step of creating a new directory and moving it later if you bind-mount you rootfs somewhere, e.g. /mnt/gentoo. Good point. You may want to add some parameters to the call to rsync, though (e.g. those that preserve permissions, xattrs (especially for SELinux or XT-PaX) and owner/group (should be -pogX), -a covers most if not all of those. possibly -x aswell (if you have other filesystems under /usr (e.g. a discrete FS for the portage tree). Another good point, one of those things you think of immediately after hitting Send :( -- Neil Bothwick Middle-age - because your age starts to show at your middle. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:16 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote: Installing a new kernel does not magically make the old one break. If that kernel worked yesterday, it will work today. Actually, that is not guaranteed. I remember a situation in the past where boot-critical software required a certain minimal kernel-version with specific config-settings. Without those I could not boot. I don't see how that is an issue with correctly written ebuilds. If you update the kernel, you are increasing the version number and your old one will still work. If you update the software, the ebuild should detect an unsuitable kernel and either warn you or abort. Either way, it is irrelevant whether you are using an initramfs or not. -- Neil Bothwick Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving. RFC 1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet - section 3.9 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 09/30/2013 04:31 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 30/09/2013 01:31, Daniel Campbell wrote: Curious; how is merging two filesystems done? I don't have a separate /usr and am completely unaffected by this change, but it's somewhat interesting to me. /usr stores some pretty important data on it, and I imagine you'd need to mount it somewhere else in order to move the files from it to /'s /usr dir. Is a Live environment recommended instead? How would you mitigate the leftover partition, assuming it's not adjacent to /'s partition? Because /usr is continually in use, boot using a livecd of your choice. In that environment, use fdisk (or whichever *disk you like) to make any changes to partitions you know you will need. Mount your gentoo / somewhere convenient Mount your gentoo /usr somewhere convenient copy the latter over to the former edit fstab reboot It really is just a case of moving a large number of files around, but because those very files are always in use you have to do it in livecd environment. There's no exact checklist one can follow to guarantee a 100% result blindly. Instead, as this is Gentoo, we assume users built their system knowing what they were doing and can appropriately deal with their config themselves. RAID and LVM for example may need attention, but the user is usually equipped to deal with that and knows what t do. I don't run an initramfs, thankfully, but I keep a pretty simple system in terms of filesystems: /, /boot, and /home. My suspicions were mostly correct, then. If the merge is that simple, I see no reason not to do it if one doesn't want to roll an initramfs. However, I imagine moving partitions around in gparted or something similar would be quite a wait if / and /usr weren't adjacent on the drive. Thanks for the simple-but-thorough explanation. :)
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Monday 30 September 2013 10:01:32 Alan McKinnon wrote: On 30/09/2013 06:14, Walter Dnes wrote: If the udev people had made net ifnames=0 the default, and allowed the small percentage of multi-nic machine admins to set net.ifnames=1, this would not have been an issue. Some corner case exotic setups require complex solutions... no ifs/ands/ors/buts. All the complaining you hear is from the other 99% who's setup worked just fine with the simple solution, suddenly finding the complex solution rammed down their throats. No, that is just plain wrong. Having interfaces on a multi-nic host come up as ethX where X is a mostly random number is just so broken it beggars belief. Trust me, it is zero fun when it happens and what makes it even worse if you have no warning at all beforehand. I trust you, but on my multi-nic systems, I found a better solution :) As I use Xen to virtualize my systems and as I don't want to have multiple network cables running side-by-side, I started using VLANs. I know have all the NICs names eth1,eth2,...ethn. I throw them all as a bonded network device: bond0 (the other ends go into a switch supporting bonding network ports) then on top of that, I have VLANs with distinctive names (lan, dmz, guest, vm,...) and link these as required to different Xen-domains. When the network names get renamed suddenly to the non-predictive scheme, my system refuses to boot. Before that, I would use mac-addresses to link ethx devices to names that make sense to me. (see above for the names) -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 30/09/2013 12:27, Daniel Campbell wrote: On 09/30/2013 04:31 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 30/09/2013 01:31, Daniel Campbell wrote: Curious; how is merging two filesystems done? I don't have a separate /usr and am completely unaffected by this change, but it's somewhat interesting to me. /usr stores some pretty important data on it, and I imagine you'd need to mount it somewhere else in order to move the files from it to /'s /usr dir. Is a Live environment recommended instead? How would you mitigate the leftover partition, assuming it's not adjacent to /'s partition? Because /usr is continually in use, boot using a livecd of your choice. In that environment, use fdisk (or whichever *disk you like) to make any changes to partitions you know you will need. Mount your gentoo / somewhere convenient Mount your gentoo /usr somewhere convenient copy the latter over to the former edit fstab reboot It really is just a case of moving a large number of files around, but because those very files are always in use you have to do it in livecd environment. There's no exact checklist one can follow to guarantee a 100% result blindly. Instead, as this is Gentoo, we assume users built their system knowing what they were doing and can appropriately deal with their config themselves. RAID and LVM for example may need attention, but the user is usually equipped to deal with that and knows what t do. I don't run an initramfs, thankfully, but I keep a pretty simple system in terms of filesystems: /, /boot, and /home. My suspicions were mostly correct, then. If the merge is that simple, I see no reason not to do it if one doesn't want to roll an initramfs. However, I imagine moving partitions around in gparted or something similar would be quite a wait if / and /usr weren't adjacent on the drive. Indeed, this is the part where it can get hairy, and it all totally depends on how the user decided to lay out their partitions. Eyeballs and brains form the solution here, not computers and scripts :-) Thanks for the simple-but-thorough explanation. :) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Monday 30 September 2013 11:24:58 Neil Bothwick wrote: On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:16 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote: Installing a new kernel does not magically make the old one break. If that kernel worked yesterday, it will work today. Actually, that is not guaranteed. I remember a situation in the past where boot-critical software required a certain minimal kernel-version with specific config-settings. Without those I could not boot. I don't see how that is an issue with correctly written ebuilds. If you update the kernel, you are increasing the version number and your old one will still work. If you update the software, the ebuild should detect an unsuitable kernel and either warn you or abort. That is the problem though, the ebuild can't detect that there is an unsuitable kernel still available. Either way, it is irrelevant whether you are using an initramfs or not. I agree, my comment was made to point out that a kernel that worked yesterday, may no longer work tomorrow. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 30/09/2013 12:32, Joost Roeleveld wrote: On Monday 30 September 2013 10:01:32 Alan McKinnon wrote: On 30/09/2013 06:14, Walter Dnes wrote: If the udev people had made net ifnames=0 the default, and allowed the small percentage of multi-nic machine admins to set net.ifnames=1, this would not have been an issue. Some corner case exotic setups require complex solutions... no ifs/ands/ors/buts. All the complaining you hear is from the other 99% who's setup worked just fine with the simple solution, suddenly finding the complex solution rammed down their throats. No, that is just plain wrong. Having interfaces on a multi-nic host come up as ethX where X is a mostly random number is just so broken it beggars belief. Trust me, it is zero fun when it happens and what makes it even worse if you have no warning at all beforehand. I trust you, but on my multi-nic systems, I found a better solution :) As I use Xen to virtualize my systems and as I don't want to have multiple network cables running side-by-side, I started using VLANs. I know have all the NICs names eth1,eth2,...ethn. I throw them all as a bonded network device: bond0 (the other ends go into a switch supporting bonding network ports) then on top of that, I have VLANs with distinctive names (lan, dmz, guest, vm,...) and link these as required to different Xen-domains. When the network names get renamed suddenly to the non-predictive scheme, my system refuses to boot. Before that, I would use mac-addresses to link ethx devices to names that make sense to me. (see above for the names) The worst case that comes to mind was a three zone netflow collector plus the first nic on our management range. If you're familiar with old netflow versions you'll know it is UDP from the router and is touchy about addresses. So we had incoming netflow from three ranges each hitting a dedicated nic and this all worked marvellously for years and years. One day after a routine maintenance window the box came up with all 4 nics scrambled and who knows what was now assigned to what. Forget ssh to log in and fix it - nothing was listening. That took very senior sysadmins on site to deal with, the regular maintenance guy was in way over his head. Business were OK with losing 15 minutes billing and stats data in a maintenance window. They were definitely not OK with losing several hours of it because someone thought assigning names on a non-deterministic discovery order was a good idea. One thing about Dell hardware - you always know exactly what each nic is connected to on the motherboard so with that info the new names are predictable (consistent is actually the better term). Using MAC addresses for the same purposes is clunky and unwieldy, the MACs have to be recorded somewhere and you still don't know which MAC goes with which physical socket. With bus numbers you do know. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 29.09.2013 20:25, Dale wrote: Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-29 11:24 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Tanstaafl wrote: Dale - I'm honestly curious, what is your reason, philisophical or technical, for wanting a separate /usr? Everything I've read says there is no good reason for it today. Separate /home, /tmp, /var, yes, good reasons for t hose... but not /usr... So, again - why would you prefer switching distro's over merging /usr back into / and be done with it? The reason is the same I have posted before. I have / and /boot on regular partitions. Everything else is on LVM. I don't have / on LVM because it would require a init thingy. I don't have /boot on LVM because grub doesn't or didn't support it. I have since switched to grub2 so it may but still have the issue with / so no need redoing everything for that. Well, I don't see a *reason* to WANT to have /usr on a separate partition. I see only THE reason that you have it there NOW. Also, logically speaking, if the stated reason for not having / (or /boot) on separate LVM partitions is because it would require an init thingy, then why can't you simply add /usr to that reason? Again, I'm asking for why you WANT it on a separate LVM partition, not why it is there now. The way I see it, if y ou cannot provide a rational answer to that question, then there is no reason for you to use this as a reason to abandon gentoo, only a reason to merge /usr into /... Simple, I have never had to resize / or /boot before. I have had to resize /usr, /var and /home several times tho. THAT is the reason. For me, it doesn't matter if it is rational to YOU or not. I am the one doing things on my puter not you or anyone else. If the init thingy fails, that will be me staring at a error message, not you. I agree to 100% with you Dale. I have /usr on a separate LVM partition (I only have, as you, / and /boot on regular partitions) to be able to easily extend it (which I have been forced to do a few times). And as my VG-partition starts directly after the /-partition I am not in the position to extend / to engulf all the data in /usr. -- Dan Johansson, http://www.dmj.nu *** This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons! *** 0x2FB894AD.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 30.09.2013 01:27, schrieb Dale: Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-29 5:35 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Tanstaafl wrote: Ok, but... everything I've read and personal experience over the years shows that space required for /usr should not change much, especially constantly grow over time (like requirements for /home can and will)- it may fluctuate (increase, decrease) *a little* over time, but it definitely should not grow substantially, so, if you had to resize it, most likely it is because you simply didn't allocate enough room to start with. So my experience doesn't matter any then? Dale, that is NOT what I said, and nothing I am saying is intended to be offensive. My /usr does vary and sometimes varies quite a bit. The question you should be asking yourself then, is WHY? To me, it doesn't matter why it varies, it just does. After each update, I check to see what the partitions look like. The biggest change was going from KDE3 to KDE4. That seemed to make things grow a good bit. Other things I install/uninstall seem to change things too. That is why I had to resize the thing. Saying that I didn't make it large enough to begin with isn't the point. It is precisely the point... The fact is, there is nothing in there that *should* vary much (once your system is fully installed) - unless you are using it in some non-standard way, and/or not occasionally cleaning out /usr/src (as Alan pointed out)... and if either of those is the case, then as I said, it is your own fault that you needed to resize it. Don't you see how contradictory it is to say that you will change from gentoo to distro-x because gentoo has made a change that requires you to either merge /usr into / or use an 'init thingy', when distro-x, that you say you will change to, USES AN INIT THINGY? Doesn't that sound irrational to you? No, it doesn't. On Gentoo, I HAVE to make the thing but don't know how to fix it if it breaks. On other distros, I don't have to make the thing. If it fails, at worst, I can reinstall in much less time than I would spend trying to fix the silly thing. Since I don't know how to fix one and can't boot to get help, then the computer may as well be a screen door on a submarine. As I posted before, if something breaks and I can't fix it, I replace it with something else that works. That could be why /usr varies so much too. What would be logical and rational would be to either: a) learn how to use an init thingy (which from some more reading I've been doing, doesn't look quite as bad as it seemed initially), or b) determine what is a sane size for /usr, make / an appropriate size to subsume it, and merge it into /. Now, if you don't have enough room in / to merge it, then obviously it will be more painful, but once it is done, you never have to worry about it again - and no init thingy. Actually, history proves that wrong too. I started using LVM because I got tired of having to rearrange my partitions and resize things. That was the whole reason I switched to LVM when I did. Ask anyone on this list that has been here long ehough. I have had to move things around LOTS of times because things grow including /usr and /var. /home is a different and unrelated thing. Funny thing is, I did it several times and never even posted about it. When people use LVM, the reason they use it is so that we can resize things when needed. Yes, and I use LVM - but again, this is only important for dirs/mnt points that have the potential to consume more and more disk space... that potential is simply not there for (a properly configured and maintained) /usr... See above. And what is rational for you, is not rational to me. Since you can dismiss mine, I can dismiss yours too. Funny how that works huh? Yep... and you can also dismiss my claim that jumping off that 1,000' cliff won't result in you going splat, but it doesn't change the fact that if you jump off of it, you WILL go splat. I just wouldn't get the chance to say I told you so. And what you are saying is not changing anything either. I don't want to mess with the init thingy. If I do, first time it fails and a solution isn't obvious, time to move on to something else. I like my 16 year old washing machine and I have repaired things on it a few times. If it breaks and I can't fix it, time for a new washing machine. Most likely, a different brand and model too. Dale :-) :-) 500gb harddisks are extremely cheap. 150gb for / with usr and you will be fine for ages. Why are you acting like this is a problem?
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-30 1:10 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: 150gb for / with usr and you will be fine for ages. I'm curious what a common/average size is for desktops... My /usr, without portage files, is @ 5GB. My current / is only 83M, so even after I merge /usr into it, it will still be only @ 5GB... But, this is a server, so... For an average desktop, loaded with software (say, KDE, Libreoffice, etc), how much will /usr grow to? Or more specifically, what is a *reasonable* maximum one could expect?
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 30.09.2013 19:25, schrieb Tanstaafl: On 2013-09-30 1:10 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: 150gb for / with usr and you will be fine for ages. I'm curious what a common/average size is for desktops... My /usr, without portage files, is @ 5GB. My current / is only 83M, so even after I merge /usr into it, it will still be only @ 5GB... But, this is a server, so... For an average desktop, loaded with software (say, KDE, Libreoffice, etc), how much will /usr grow to? Or more specifically, what is a *reasonable* maximum one could expect? my whole / with KDE, libreoffice, ut2004 in /opt and /usr/src having several linux versions in it but without PORTDIR is: /dev/root59G 33G 24G 58% / 10G are /opt 18G are /usr 5.4G are /usr/src
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Dan Johansson dan.johans...@dmj.nu wrote: On 29.09.2013 20:25, Dale wrote: Simple, I have never had to resize / or /boot before. I have had to resize /usr, /var and /home several times tho. THAT is the reason. For me, it doesn't matter if it is rational to YOU or not. I am the one doing things on my puter not you or anyone else. If the init thingy fails, that will be me staring at a error message, not you. I agree to 100% with you Dale. I have /usr on a separate LVM partition (I only have, as you, / and /boot on regular partitions) to be able to easily extend it (which I have been forced to do a few times). And as my VG-partition starts directly after the /-partition I am not in the position to extend / to engulf all the data in /usr. Peeps using LVM: If, right now, you were forced to boot into /, without /usr, would you be able to manually assemble your usr using pv/vg/lv tools - without the assistance of udev? The gentoo warning is simply saying that they don't have enough people to devote to debugging problems where that happens. So if you so love your / rescue systems, you can make a very early init script - before udev - that mounts /usr. And you could host it on an overlay if you want or submit it into gentoo bugzilla as a proposal. It isn't unsupported in that they're going to make sure it doesn't work. It's unsupported in that they don't have the resources to fix bugs caused by that. -- This email is:[ ] actionable [x] fyi[ ] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate[ ] soon [x] none
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 30/09/2013 19:25, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-30 1:10 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: 150gb for / with usr and you will be fine for ages. I'm curious what a common/average size is for desktops... My /usr, without portage files, is @ 5GB. My current / is only 83M, so even after I merge /usr into it, it will still be only @ 5GB... But, this is a server, so... For an average desktop, loaded with software (say, KDE, Libreoffice, etc), how much will /usr grow to? Or more specifically, what is a *reasonable* maximum one could expect? The big space hogs are: /usr/lib* /usr/share/ most of that comes from KDE and Gnome. Both systems are huge and bundle lots of accessory files - best descriptive word I could find. The main culprit by far is artwork - themes, wallpaper, sound themes, icon collections and so on. Second is marble, celestia and similar geo* type apps with their maps. I'd say 20G total is a) lots more than you'd actually need even with tons of unneeded artwork and b) a tiny fraction of the smallest (spinning) disk you can buy these days. So 20G is a good upper limit to start with. Marble and celestia users can bump it up according to their needs - anyone who has detailed maps of the entire Earth's land surface likely already knows how much disk space it takes up :-) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 30.09.2013 20:09, Mark David Dumlao wrote: Peeps using LVM: If, right now, you were forced to boot into /, without /usr, would you be able to manually assemble your usr using pv/vg/lv tools - without the assistance of udev? Sure can!!! -- Dan Johansson, http://www.dmj.nu *** This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons! *** 0x2FB894AD.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:25:57 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-30 1:10 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: 150gb for / with usr and you will be fine for ages. I'm curious what a common/average size is for desktops... My /usr, without portage files, is @ 5GB. My current / is only 83M, so even after I merge /usr into it, it will still be only @ 5GB... But, this is a server, so... For an average desktop, loaded with software (say, KDE, Libreoffice, etc), how much will /usr grow to? Or more specifically, what is a *reasonable* maximum one could expect? My desktop % df /usr Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on silastic/usr zfs32G 15G 17G 48% /usr My laptop % df /usr Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on bangbang/usr zfs16G 9.1G 6.6G 59% /usr Both with KDE and LO, but no portage. $PORTDIR is on /var, $DISTDIR and $PKGDIR are on an NFS mount. -- Neil Bothwick There are some ideas so idiotic that only an intellectual could believe them George Orwell signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: 500gb harddisks are extremely cheap. 150gb for / with usr and you will be fine for ages. Why are you acting like this is a problem? Maybe cheap for you but not so for me. I'm on a fixed income, disabled. Also, my brother has cancer and I'm taking him to treatments that are about 75 miles away one way. I'm buying gas since he can't work much if any right now either. Right now, buying anything computer related is out of the question. I got much more important things to deal wtih. I'm certainly not going to be able to do that in the next 30 days. So, computer, Gentoo as well, is pretty low on the priority list. I suspect I will be bootable for a good while but have a plan B if needed. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:38:36 +0200, Dan Johansson wrote: I agree to 100% with you Dale. I have /usr on a separate LVM partition (I only have, as you, / and /boot on regular partitions) to be able to easily extend it (which I have been forced to do a few times). And as my VG-partition starts directly after the /-partition I am not in the position to extend / to engulf all the data in /usr. It's possible, even without an external drive, but a fair bit more work, provided you have enough free space in your VG to be able to reduce it. -- Neil Bothwick GOTO: (n.) an efficient and general way of controlling a program, much despised by academics and others whose brains have been ruined by overexposure to Pascal. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 30.09.2013 22:48, schrieb Dale: Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: 500gb harddisks are extremely cheap. 150gb for / with usr and you will be fine for ages. Why are you acting like this is a problem? Maybe cheap for you but not so for me. I'm on a fixed income, disabled. Also, my brother has cancer and I'm taking him to treatments that are about 75 miles away one way. I'm buying gas since he can't work much if any right now either. Right now, buying anything computer related is out of the question. I got much more important things to deal wtih. I'm certainly not going to be able to do that in the next 30 days. So, computer, Gentoo as well, is pretty low on the priority list. I suspect I will be bootable for a good while but have a plan B if needed. Dale :-) :-) you are talking to a person whose income is only slightly above social security levels and I am still be able to buy an adequate hdd once in a while.
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: Am 30.09.2013 22:48, schrieb Dale: Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: 500gb harddisks are extremely cheap. 150gb for / with usr and you will be fine for ages. Why are you acting like this is a problem? Maybe cheap for you but not so for me. I'm on a fixed income, disabled. Also, my brother has cancer and I'm taking him to treatments that are about 75 miles away one way. I'm buying gas since he can't work much if any right now either. Right now, buying anything computer related is out of the question. I got much more important things to deal wtih. I'm certainly not going to be able to do that in the next 30 days. So, computer, Gentoo as well, is pretty low on the priority list. I suspect I will be bootable for a good while but have a plan B if needed. Dale :-) :-) you are talking to a person whose income is only slightly above social security levels and I am still be able to buy an adequate hdd once in a while. As I said, I got other more important things to deal with right now. My money is going to that not hard drives. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:47:46PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: My desktop % df /usr Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on silastic/usr zfs32G 15G 17G 48% /usr My laptop % df /usr Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on bangbang/usr zfs16G 9.1G 6.6G 59% /usr Both with KDE and LO, but no portage. $PORTDIR is on /var, $DISTDIR and $PKGDIR are on an NFS mount. Do you have some alias causing df output to use -h or how does that work? -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sunday 29 Sep 2013 06:29:37 Walter Dnes wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 06:09:40PM -0500, Dale wrote Most likely, I'll install Kubuntu to start. Then I may roam around and test other distros until I find one I like. Thing is, I already have a starting point. I'm already looking. http://forums.funtoo.org/viewtopic.php?id=2265 and they also dislike systemd. I think I could get to like it. See also http://bugs.funtoo.org/browse/FL-34 Very interesting! This looks as a logical way to put udev back in its userspace box and stop it breaking the OS, or did I understand it incorrectly? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 29/09/2013 10:25, Mick wrote: On Sunday 29 Sep 2013 06:29:37 Walter Dnes wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 06:09:40PM -0500, Dale wrote Most likely, I'll install Kubuntu to start. Then I may roam around and test other distros until I find one I like. Thing is, I already have a starting point. I'm already looking. http://forums.funtoo.org/viewtopic.php?id=2265 and they also dislike systemd. I think I could get to like it. See also http://bugs.funtoo.org/browse/FL-34 Very interesting! This looks as a logical way to put udev back in its userspace box and stop it breaking the OS, or did I understand it incorrectly? Exherbo might be worth a look too[1]. It's a sort-of Gentoo fork using the portage tree and PMS; plus Ciaran strikes me as the kind of guy who *would* expend massive effort to find a way round current udev and systemd. [1] I didn't look myself. I have no idea what Exherbo's stance is on this matter. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Bruce Hill wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:48:11AM -0400, Greg Woodbury wrote: To answer Alan's question - the main fault lies on the GNOME project and the forcing for systemd down user's systems throats. Additionally, as certina things were added to Linux to enhance capabilities, the GNOME developers (apparently) *deliberately* placed the programs in /usr/bin, instead of in the generally accepted place of /bin. Alan is correct - there is a deliberate cause of this debacle. Certain folks (Lennart being one of many) *are* cramming their vision of Linux on the whole community. I have read severl folks defending their ignoring of the old protocol of placing boot-required programs in /bin (and hence on root) as being holdovers from ancient history and claiming that disk space is so cheap these days that it isn't necessary to keep this distinction. As a result of the GNOMEish forcing, some distros have even gone so far as to *do away* with /bin - and have placed everything in /usr/bin with compatibility symlinks as a holdover/workaround. I lay this at the feet of GNOME, and thus, at the feet of RedHat. Linux used to be about *choice* aand leaving up to the users/admins about how they wanted to configure their systems. But certain forces in the Linux marketplace are hell-bent on imitating Microsoft's one way to do it thinking that they are outdoing the evil empire's evilness. I fully understand systemd and see that it is a solution seeking a problem to solve. And its developers, being nearly identical with the set of GNOME developers, are forcing this *thing* on the Linux universe. Certainly, the SystemV init system needed to have a way of *automagically/automatically* handling a wider set of dependencies. When we wrote if for System IV at Bell Labs in 1981 or so, we didn't have the time to solve the problem of having the computer handle the dependencies and moved the handling out to the human mind to solve by setting the numerical sequence numbers. (I was one of the writers for System IV init while a contractor.) OpenRC provided a highly compatible and organic extension of the system, and Gentoo has been happy for severl years with it. But now, the same folks who are thrusting GNOME/systemd down the throats of systems everywhere, have invaded or gained converts enought in the Gentoo structure to try and force their way on Gentoo. Gentoo may be flexible enough to allow someone to write an overlay that moves the necessary things back to /bin (and install symlinks from /usr/bin to /bin) so that an initrd/initramfs is not required. But I suspect that Gentoo and many distributions are too far gone down the path of deception to recover. Neil and other may disagree with this assessment, but I saw it coming and this is not the first time it has been pointed out - and not just by me. Who knows though? I may just have to abandon prepared distributions completely and do a Linux From Scratch solution, or fork some distro and tey to undo the worst of the damage. -- G.Wolfe Woodbury redwo...@gmail.com And that, folks, is the best and most accurate summary I've read to date. Thank you, sir, for stepping up to the plate. A friend of mine has his own Linux distro (has for a long time), and explained this to me some time ago. He's not effected by this. Bruce Name that distro please. ;-) Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 29.09.2013 10:28, schrieb Alan McKinnon: On 29/09/2013 10:25, Mick wrote: On Sunday 29 Sep 2013 06:29:37 Walter Dnes wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 06:09:40PM -0500, Dale wrote Most likely, I'll install Kubuntu to start. Then I may roam around and test other distros until I find one I like. Thing is, I already have a starting point. I'm already looking. http://forums.funtoo.org/viewtopic.php?id=2265 and they also dislike systemd. I think I could get to like it. See also http://bugs.funtoo.org/browse/FL-34 Very interesting! This looks as a logical way to put udev back in its userspace box and stop it breaking the OS, or did I understand it incorrectly? Exherbo might be worth a look too[1]. It's a sort-of Gentoo fork using the portage tree and PMS; plus Ciaran strikes me as the kind of guy who *would* expend massive effort to find a way round current udev and systemd. [1] I didn't look myself. I have no idea what Exherbo's stance is on this matter. why do you bring up udev and systemd AT ALL? They are not the problem or the reason why seperate /usr is prone to break.
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 09/29/2013 06:55 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: why do you bring up udev and systemd AT ALL? They are not the problem or the reason why seperate /usr is prone to break. Except that systemd *is* why a seperate /usr is broken now. Parts of the libraries that systemd depend on we *deliberately* placed in /usr despite the fact that they are needed to bbring the system to an operational state. For *years* things required to boot the system were defined to be in the root file system, and items not required until after mounting had been accomplished were to be placed in /usr. BTW: There is a standard (The File System Hierarch Standard - FSS) that existed and described this behaviour. It was killed off by deliberate vendor refusals to support or adhere to it. In frustration, the folks involved simply gave up. -- G.Wolfe Woodbury redwo...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 29.09.2013 13:03, schrieb Greg Woodbury: On 09/29/2013 06:55 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: why do you bring up udev and systemd AT ALL? They are not the problem or the reason why seperate /usr is prone to break. Except that systemd *is* why a seperate /usr is broken now. Parts of the libraries that systemd depend on we *deliberately* placed in /usr despite the fact that they are needed to bbring the system to an operational state. For *years* things required to boot the system were defined to be in the root file system, and items not required until after mounting had been accomplished were to be placed in /usr. BTW: There is a standard (The File System Hierarch Standard - FSS) that existed and described this behaviour. It was killed off by deliberate vendor refusals to support or adhere to it. In frustration, the folks involved simply gave up. things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not the root cause of the problem. The problems were caused by people saying that seperate /usr was a good idea, so / would not fill up and similar idiocies. The problems were caused by people saying that lvm is a good idea - for desktops. Those people who are fighting against the kernel auto assembling raids are to blame too. Systemd is just another point in a very long list.
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Hello, Neil. On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:37:50PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 21:09:38 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction, now it has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer devote the increasing time needed to support what has now become an edge case. That's precisely the sort of patronising comment I was complaining of in my previous paragraph. In what way is it patronising? It talks down to people. It insinuates that the readers don't have the wherewithal to appreciate that they have been deliberately hurt by _somebody_ rather than something just happening; that the idea of an abstraction moving is any sort of justification for anything. It isn't evolution. It has been a decision of somebody to move it. Who? It hasn't been a single decision. Somebody, somewhere was the first person to decide to put early boot software into /usr. Others may have followed him, sooner or later, but there was a single person (or perhaps a conspiracy) that did this first. Who? There was no public discussion of this momentous change, not that I'm aware of. Why? No, this breaking of separate /usr was done by some specific project, some specific person, even, in a supreme display of incompetence, malice, or arrogance. How come this project and this person have managed to maintain such a low profile? There seems to have been some sort of conspiracy to do this breakage in secret, each member of the coven pushing the plot until the damage was irrevocable. Who was it? So which was it, one specific person or a coven of conspirators? This is open source, secret conspiracies don't really work well. If this really was such a bad move, do you really think the likes of Greg K-H would not have stepped in? Or is he a conspirator too? I know not how many people were involved. Don't you think it noteworthy that we on this group first learnt of the change when it had already happened? I have no idea whether people like GK-H would have been aware of it either. I think that is entirely the right time to learn of it. If you want to know about the devs' discussions before reaching the decision, you should read gentoo-dev. Until then it was a dev issue, now it is being implemented it is a user issue. Please be aware the change I was talking about was the decision to break separate /usr, not the Gentoo devs' reaction to this breakage. Why did we only become aware of the decision to break separate /usr after it was too late to do anything about it? How could such a thing happen, if not through conspiracy? It [creating an initramfs] may or may not be demanding for any particular administrator. It is undoubtedly tedious and time consuming. I disagree, but then I have actually tried doing it. I tried, and gave up after a couple of hours. It was a challenge, but I've grown out of being fascinated by challenges for their own sake. Then I installed dracut, only to find it won't work on my system. I haven't tried genkernel. In the end, with regrets, I took /usr out of my LVM area and put it into a new partition which became the root partition. This whole discussion reminds me of a conversation I had with a senior SUSE engineer earlier this year, someone of a similar age to myself. His comment was along the lines of I remember when Linux users wanted the latest bleeding edge, now they complain every time something changes. The particular change is not progress, it's not a new feature, it's not something useful for users. It's pure breakage for no good reason. If this is what bleeding edge now means, no surprise that people complain about it. -- Neil Bothwick A journey of a thousand miles begins with a cash advance from Mom. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-28 8:30 AM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: This does not mean that on November 1 your system will not be able to boot. Its simply means that beginning November 1, Gentoo devs are not required to jump through hoops to make apps work on systems with /usr separate from /. Now, what are you going to do? That's the question. This won't necessarily be the end of the worl, if, and ONLY if any and all ebuild mainteainers are REQUIRED to provide very large and scary warnings if they change something that will cause any systems with a separate /usr and NO initramfs to fail to boot. Anything else is pure sadism.
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-28 9:15 AM, Michael Hampicke m...@hadt.biz wrote: Am 28.09.2013 13:32, schrieb Tanstaafl: On 2013-09-27 7:10 PM, Alan McKinnonalan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: No really,*why exactly*? Because that was the RECOMMENDED WAY IN THE GENTOO HANDBOOK when I first set this system up many years ago. Where did you read that? According to the 2004 handbook the default partition scheme was: Partition Filesystem SizeDescription /dev/hda1 ext232M Boot partition /dev/hda2 (swap) 512MSwap partition /dev/hda3 ext3Rest of the diskRoot partition http://web.archive.org/web/20040419042803/http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?full=1 While I'm fairly certain that it was in the LVM portion of the handbook (since that is what I was wanting to use), I really don't care what that link says. The fact is, when I installed this system, it was my very first gentoo system, and I am very methodical about these kinds of things, and there is absolutely no way on gods green earth that I would have opted for a separate /usr unless the instructions said to do it, whether as something that was mandatory, or maybe it only said it was preferred (to take advantage of the features of LVM)...
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-28 2:18 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michael Hampicke wrote: No seperate /usr either Well, it was there when I followed it otherwise, I wouldn't have known to even do it. I all but copy and pasted the instructions from the install guide. I'm 99% certain it was in the LVM part of the handbook/guide. Dale - I'm honestly curious, what is your reason, philisophical or technical, for wanting a separate /usr? Everything I've read says there is no good reason for it today. Separate /home, /tmp, /var, yes, good reasons for t hose... but not /usr... So, again - why would you prefer switching distro's over merging /usr back into / and be done with it?
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-28 3:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: Hi, William. On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:01:59AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: I have a pretty simple setup, but I have been using an initramfs which I built some time ago with genkernel and I barely know it is there. Until, after some update, it reminds you of its presence by not booting your machine. That's the sort of excitement I can do without. Precisely. And, it is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), that simply keeping your old kernel/initramfs around is NOT a guarantee (it might work - and it might NOT) of being able to fallback to a known working config until you figure it out. THAT, in a nutshell, is why my intention is to NEVER let one of those things on my systems.
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-28 3:50 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 20:11:06 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: To merge two filesystems, you just merge two filesystems. You don't rebuild anything. You might have some downtime though one reboot. You cp everything into /newuser. On shutdown you unmount /usr, mv newuser usr, sync, unmount, reboot. if you want to do it 'old fashioned', you cp everything to /newuser, reboot with systemrescuecd, mount / on /mnt/gentoo, my newuser to usr and reboot. Oh, and change fstab. It's not that simple if /usr is on LVM, Mine is / is not large enough to hold /usr But luckily, mine is - merging will leave about 5GB free (out of a total of 19GB for my / filesystem)... and resizing the partition is really tricky. In that case, the simplest option is to start using an initramfs. Once that is working, you can get rid of the separate root partition and move that filesystem into the VG too. Thanks, but I definitely don't want my / on LVM... ;)
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:20:49AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-28 8:30 AM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: This does not mean that on November 1 your system will not be able to boot. Its simply means that beginning November 1, Gentoo devs are not required to jump through hoops to make apps work on systems with /usr separate from /. Now, what are you going to do? That's the question. This won't necessarily be the end of the worl, if, and ONLY if any and all ebuild mainteainers are REQUIRED to provide very large and scary warnings if they change something that will cause any systems with a separate /usr and NO initramfs to fail to boot. The news item *IS* the warning. -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-28 2:18 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michael Hampicke wrote: No seperate /usr either Well, it was there when I followed it otherwise, I wouldn't have known to even do it. I all but copy and pasted the instructions from the install guide. I'm 99% certain it was in the LVM part of the handbook/guide. Dale - I'm honestly curious, what is your reason, philisophical or technical, for wanting a separate /usr? Everything I've read says there is no good reason for it today. Separate /home, /tmp, /var, yes, good reasons for t hose... but not /usr... So, again - why would you prefer switching distro's over merging /usr back into / and be done with it? . I didn't use LVM back then. I only started using LVM a few years ago. The reason is the same I have posted before. I have / and /boot on regular partitions. Everything else is on LVM. I don't have / on LVM because it would require a init thingy. I don't have /boot on LVM because grub doesn't or didn't support it. I have since switched to grub2 so it may but still have the issue with / so no need redoing everything for that. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-28 3:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: Hi, William. On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:01:59AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: I have a pretty simple setup, but I have been using an initramfs which I built some time ago with genkernel and I barely know it is there. Until, after some update, it reminds you of its presence by not booting your machine. That's the sort of excitement I can do without. Precisely. And, it is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), that simply keeping your old kernel/initramfs around is NOT a guarantee (it might work - and it might NOT) of being able to fallback to a known working config until you figure it out. THAT, in a nutshell, is why my intention is to NEVER let one of those things on my systems. . That is a point I have made a few times. If the init thingy fails and I can't get my system to boot, Gentoo isn't doing me a bit of good. I can't boot to get help to fix it and I'm not walking up the tall hill to my brothers to try and get help with his computer. With my health, that would be only one trip, two at best. A OS is no different than anything else around here that is broken, if it is broke and I can't fix it, I replace it. I have done it with appliances and several other things including cars. All of whcih costs a lot more money and such than any OS out there that I know of. I think I'll update that Kubuntu disk right quick while I am thinking about it. Fall back plan just in case. ;-) Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sep 29, 2013 3:33 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 29/09/2013 10:25, Mick wrote: On Sunday 29 Sep 2013 06:29:37 Walter Dnes wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 06:09:40PM -0500, Dale wrote Most likely, I'll install Kubuntu to start. Then I may roam around and test other distros until I find one I like. Thing is, I already have a starting point. I'm already looking. http://forums.funtoo.org/viewtopic.php?id=2265 and they also dislike systemd. I think I could get to like it. See also http://bugs.funtoo.org/browse/FL-34 Very interesting! This looks as a logical way to put udev back in its userspace box and stop it breaking the OS, or did I understand it incorrectly? Exherbo might be worth a look too[1]. It's a sort-of Gentoo fork using the portage tree and PMS; plus Ciaran strikes me as the kind of guy who *would* expend massive effort to find a way round current udev and systemd. [1] I didn't look myself. I have no idea what Exherbo's stance is on this matter. Exherbo recommends installing systemd [1]. Sabayon installs systemd by default [2]. Funtoo is considering running GNOME =3.8 in a container so systemd doesn't impact the rest of the system [3] (which by the way looks like an interesting idea). However, in the same link Daniel Robbins says: [...] from my perspective, I think it is simply so people can run GNOME. I do like GNOME 3.6. I like their new UI. It would be nice to run 3.8. I don't care about systemd. It is simply a dep of GNOME. That is all. I see that as being open to the idea of using systemd in the future. It doesn't say that they'll never support systemd, as others would. Well, users; for the people that actually write the code, the majority seems to like systemd, or at least don't have a problem with it. Anyhow, many in this thread forget that it was the OpenRC maintainer the one that proposed the change to stop supporting a separate /usr without an initramfs. If you use OpenRC, and have a separate /usr without an initramfs, and *anything * breaks in your machine, you get to keep the pieces. No (official) support for you. It doesn't matter if you use udev, eudev (which is the same, just emasculated), nor mdev. OpenRC will start assuming an early available /usr; that's why its maintainer championed the change. It needs it to actually compete with systemd. So even Funtoo will need the same requirement, unless they switch to runit. As others have said, this is not really related to systemd/udev. It's OpenRC, the official and (still) recommended init system for Gentoo, the one that is making the change. And about time, if you ask me. Regards. [1] http://www.exherbo.org/docs/install-guide.html [2] http://www.sabayon.org [3] http://bugs.funtoo.org/browse/FL-674
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 29.09.2013 14:07, schrieb Alan Mackenzie: snipped everything because of stupid 'conspiracy' talk there was no conspiracy and there will never be one to break seperate /usr. In fact seperate /usr works just fine. You just need an initrd/initramfs. Other distros are using those for ages. So for them putting something 'essential' into /usr was no problem. It was not their fault that gentoo users hate this things so much. From REDHATs or SuSEs perspective seperate /usr is not a problem. Putting lvm/bluetooth/mdraid/whateverthefuckyoumightneed there was and is not a problem too. Thanks to initrdsco. They are using them for AGES and it works fine. See? No conspiracy needed. It just happened that YOUR use case of seperate /usr + no initrd has become so arcane and rare that pretty much nobody needs or wants to worry about fringe cases. Would you be fine with a 40% decrease in performance just to optimally support some 3 machines worldwide architecture? Certainly not. And that is not a conspiracy either. I dislike them, because they are another step to be taken on updates. But if I was so dumb to create a seperate /usr - well I wouldn't complain about the initrd and just go with the rest.
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-29 10:57 AM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:20:49AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-28 8:30 AM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: This does not mean that on November 1 your system will not be able to boot. Its simply means that beginning November 1, Gentoo devs are not required to jump through hoops to make apps work on systems with /usr separate from /. Now, what are you going to do? That's the question. This won't necessarily be the end of the worl, if, and ONLY if any and all ebuild mainteainers are REQUIRED to provide very large and scary warnings if they change something that will cause any systems with a separate /usr and NO initramfs to fail to boot. The news item *IS* the warning. Oh for fucks sake... BULLSHIT. If an ebuild maintainer changes something that will BREAK BOOTING on systems that violate the 'no separate /usr without an initramfs' rule, what in the FUCK is the problem with requiring them to WARN PEOPLE?
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-29 11:24 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Tanstaafl wrote: Dale - I'm honestly curious, what is your reason, philisophical or technical, for wanting a separate /usr? Everything I've read says there is no good reason for it today. Separate /home, /tmp, /var, yes, good reasons for t hose... but not /usr... So, again - why would you prefer switching distro's over merging /usr back into / and be done with it? The reason is the same I have posted before. I have / and /boot on regular partitions. Everything else is on LVM. I don't have / on LVM because it would require a init thingy. I don't have /boot on LVM because grub doesn't or didn't support it. I have since switched to grub2 so it may but still have the issue with / so no need redoing everything for that. Well, I don't see a *reason* to WANT to have /usr on a separate partition. I see only THE reason that you have it there NOW. Also, logically speaking, if the stated reason for not having / (or /boot) on separate LVM partitions is because it would require an init thingy, then why can't you simply add /usr to that reason? Again, I'm asking for why you WANT it on a separate LVM partition, not why it is there now. The way I see it, if y ou cannot provide a rational answer to that question, then there is no reason for you to use this as a reason to abandon gentoo, only a reason to merge /usr into /...
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-09-29 10:57 AM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:20:49AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-28 8:30 AM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: This does not mean that on November 1 your system will not be able to boot. Its simply means that beginning November 1, Gentoo devs are not required to jump through hoops to make apps work on systems with /usr separate from /. Now, what are you going to do? That's the question. This won't necessarily be the end of the worl, if, and ONLY if any and all ebuild mainteainers are REQUIRED to provide very large and scary warnings if they change something that will cause any systems with a separate /usr and NO initramfs to fail to boot. The news item *IS* the warning. Oh for fucks sake... BULLSHIT. If an ebuild maintainer changes something that will BREAK BOOTING on systems that violate the 'no separate /usr without an initramfs' rule, what in the FUCK is the problem with requiring them to WARN PEOPLE? The news item allows developers to assume that /usr is available from early boot. Therefore, they *could* be breaking *some* setups, and they will not even realize it. That is the beauty of having /usr available from early boot: it frees developers from thinking in all kind of different setups and combinations (it is on LVM? it uses raid? what level? it's on NFS? do I need a special filesystem?), so they can work in bringing more awesomeness into Gentoo. They cannot put a warning if they don't know something will break *some* setups. And the whole point of this is that they don't have to consider every single possible combination of setups; the point is not to force you to have an initramfs. The point is to guarantee early /usr availability. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-28 6:46 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: Except you can never break Gentoo with a kernel update because, unlike some other distros, installing a new kernel does not uninstall the previous one. No matter how badly wrng a kernel update goes, you can always hit reset then select the old one from the GRUB menu - reinstallation doesn't come into it. My understanding is that this is not true, and that a USERLAND update (LVM2, which I use, among them) can cause breakage that will cause the CURRENT kernel+initramfs to no longer boot. Is my understanding flawed? Totally side question: Anyone ever hear Linus' opinion of an initramfs being required to boot a system?
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-29 8:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: Please be aware the change I was talking about was the decision to break separate /usr, not the Gentoo devs' reaction to this breakage. Why did we only become aware of the decision to break separate /usr after it was too late to do anything about it? How could such a thing happen, if not through conspiracy? Even if this quote: 'nothing in politics happens by accident'? never really was spoken, it should have - because truer words were never spoken.
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-28 10:04 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 28/09/2013 13:32, Tanstaafl wrote: This, combined with an intense (also maybe irrational) desire to avoid like the plague using an initramfs, is why this decision to FORCE me into a position of possibly having to break my system (either by a filed attempt at merging /usr into /, or a failed attampt at using an initramfs). No-one is forcing you to do anything, the news item did not say that. It says that if you do it, the devs will not support you and you are on your own. It also says that in the dev's opinion, the day when you can no longer support it either is probably not too far away The main thing about this that pisses me off is the lack of enough warning... one month? Really? One month to completely rebuild a server that has been running flawlessly for many years, just because someone doesn't like something that has been done for many years? First, it is not one month, it is much longer. We've all been whinging about the issue for most of this year. Oh, please... the last conversations about this were *only* with respect to udev. Claiming that issue/conversation/thread adequately serves as advance warning about this *new* ultimatum is disingenuous at best, and an outright LIE at worst. Two, why do you think you need to rebuild the entire machine? You don't need to do that just to merge two filesystems. To merge two filesystems, you just merge two filesystems. You don't rebuild anything. You might have some downtime though Right, I misspoke there, but something that seems trivial to one person may not be quite so trivial to another. I have *never* merged a critical filesystem on a critical server like this before. Please see the news item for what it actually is, not something else. I see it as an ultimatum that I *must* change a server that has been running flawlessly for years, or face breakage at some point in the NEAR future. I also view this as a potential 'shot across the bow' warning that systemd is coming and will be shoved down our throats, like it or not. Maybe it isn't, but judging solely by recent events, I think that is much more likely than not.
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-28 4:17 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: I suppose that what I am about to say isn't really relevant, but it is unfortunate over the past year that people blamed udev specifically for this. It is true that it does things that don't work if /usr isn't mounted, but eudev does as well, since it is basically the same code. Who else is there to blame? We are continually being told that a separate /usr is broken, as though this were some unfortunate act of insert your deity here, much like an earthquake. This gets patronising really quickly. (Please note, I'm NOT blaming you here. I appreciate that you're as much victim as Dale or me or anyone else round here.) It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction, now it has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer devote the increasing time needed to support what has now become an dge case. So the solution is to give users one MONTH to prepare? Why not 6 months, or better, a year? What for gods sake is the rush??? Where are the links/pointers to the INTERNAL discussions of this decision? I seriously want to know. If gentoo devs are not willing to provide a 'paper trail' for how this decision was arrived at, and let others judge their decisions based on the merits of their arguments, then what does that say about their true motivations/intentions? Again, I don't have a problem necessarily with what is being decided (no separate /usr without an initramfs), my problem is with the implementation - giving us one MONTH before we can expect possible breakage with each and every update. The other HUGE thing that worries me, and has me seriously considering switching to FreeBSD NOW, is, maybe there really is a secret, underlying ulterior motive to force both systemd AND an initramfs for everyone in ALL use cases. If that is the case, then say so now, and give those of us who do not want this advanced notice, and I'll just plan on setting my gentoo box to never update on Nov 1, and start working on learning FreeBSD and if necessary, pay someone to help me migrate services to it. But before I do that, I guess due diligence demands that I now go to the FreeBSD support lists/forums (whatever they use) to confirm that FreeBSD does NOT and never WILL require an initramfs (preferably the reason being architectural differences in the kernel itself). Thankfully they have their own init system, so no worrying about systemd invading there... I hope...
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-28 12:01 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: There is no reason to rebuild your server; we aren't telling you you have to merge /usr into /. The only thing we are saying is that you will need to use an initramfs if you are going to keep them separate. Which, if you even bothered to read the words in the posts of the people who are pushing back on this so much as to their specific *reasons* that this is a problem, is the whole point... I am reasonably good at following instructions, but I am paranoid when it comes to researching before doing something that has even a remote potential for breaking one of my systems - and the horror stories I've read involving the whole initramfs deal just makes it clear that it is just one more single point of failure that has a very GOOD chance of breaking every time I upgrade my kernel or certain critical USERLAND tools (like LVM) (I do NOT use genkernel or dracut and I do NOT want to have to START using them), I update them manually, and I'm comfortable with that. I have said more than once in these threads that I do *not* have a philosophical (or other) reason for wanting to keep them separate, so, my ONLY other choice (if I want to stick with gentoo, which I do) is to merge /usr back into /. I've been told that this shouldn't be a big deal... while I am a (barely) passable linux sys admin - I am NOT a programmer, I do NOT know how to interpret vague boot errors or TRACE a process to see where or why it is failing (much less fix it if I could), so if something breaks badly, I'll be like a fish out of water...
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:24:25PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: The news item *IS* the warning. Oh for *Tanstaafl's* sake... *Tanstaafl*. If an ebuild maintainer changes something that will BREAK BOOTING on systems that violate the 'no separate /usr without an initramfs' rule, what in the *Tanstaafl* is the problem with requiring them to WARN PEOPLE? You show the smallness of your vocabulary by using profanity. And you show the shallowness of your *nix knowledge by replying with such nonesense. -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-09-28 4:17 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: I suppose that what I am about to say isn't really relevant, but it is unfortunate over the past year that people blamed udev specifically for this. It is true that it does things that don't work if /usr isn't mounted, but eudev does as well, since it is basically the same code. Who else is there to blame? We are continually being told that a separate /usr is broken, as though this were some unfortunate act of insert your deity here, much like an earthquake. This gets patronising really quickly. (Please note, I'm NOT blaming you here. I appreciate that you're as much victim as Dale or me or anyone else round here.) It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction, now it has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer devote the increasing time needed to support what has now become an dge case. So the solution is to give users one MONTH to prepare? Why not 6 months, or better, a year? What for gods sake is the rush??? Where are the links/pointers to the INTERNAL discussions of this decision? I seriously want to know. If gentoo devs are not willing to provide a 'paper trail' for how this decision was arrived at, and let others judge their decisions based on the merits of their arguments, then what does that say about their true motivations/intentions? The discussion happened in [1], [2], and [3]. And in similar meetings and mailing lists since months ago. [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2946 [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130924.txt [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/88282 All has been made in the open; if you subscribed to gentoo-dev, or to genoo-project, you would know about this changes since months ago. Again, I don't have a problem necessarily with what is being decided (no separate /usr without an initramfs), my problem is with the implementation - giving us one MONTH before we can expect possible breakage with each and every update. How much time do you need? Six months? A year? The other HUGE thing that worries me, and has me seriously considering switching to FreeBSD NOW, is, maybe there really is a secret, underlying ulterior motive to force both systemd AND an initramfs for everyone in ALL use cases. If that is the case, then say so now, and give those of us who do not want this advanced notice, and I'll just plan on setting my gentoo box to never update on Nov 1, and start working on learning FreeBSD and if necessary, pay someone to help me migrate services to it. Read the discussion: the change was proposed by William Hubbs, the OpenRC maintainer. You know, the *other* init system? The change was backed by the council and, it seems, most Gentoo developers, many of whom doesn't use (and some don't like) systemd. No bogeyman here, no grand conspiracy. Read the logs. But before I do that, I guess due diligence demands that I now go to the FreeBSD support lists/forums (whatever they use) to confirm that FreeBSD does NOT and never WILL require an initramfs (preferably the reason being architectural differences in the kernel itself). Thankfully they have their own init system, so no worrying about systemd invading there... I hope... systemd, according to its author, will never support *BSD. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-29 11:24 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Tanstaafl wrote: Dale - I'm honestly curious, what is your reason, philisophical or technical, for wanting a separate /usr? Everything I've read says there is no good reason for it today. Separate /home, /tmp, /var, yes, good reasons for t hose... but not /usr... So, again - why would you prefer switching distro's over merging /usr back into / and be done with it? The reason is the same I have posted before. I have / and /boot on regular partitions. Everything else is on LVM. I don't have / on LVM because it would require a init thingy. I don't have /boot on LVM because grub doesn't or didn't support it. I have since switched to grub2 so it may but still have the issue with / so no need redoing everything for that. Well, I don't see a *reason* to WANT to have /usr on a separate partition. I see only THE reason that you have it there NOW. Also, logically speaking, if the stated reason for not having / (or /boot) on separate LVM partitions is because it would require an init thingy, then why can't you simply add /usr to that reason? Again, I'm asking for why you WANT it on a separate LVM partition, not why it is there now. The way I see it, if y ou cannot provide a rational answer to that question, then there is no reason for you to use this as a reason to abandon gentoo, only a reason to merge /usr into /... Simple, I have never had to resize / or /boot before. I have had to resize /usr, /var and /home several times tho. THAT is the reason. For me, it doesn't matter if it is rational to YOU or not. I am the one doing things on my puter not you or anyone else. If the init thingy fails, that will be me staring at a error message, not you. I hope that clears it up for you. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-29 2:02 PM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: You show the smallness of your vocabulary by using profanity. Rotflmao! Sometimes profanity actually serves a purpose. And you show the shallowness of your *nix knowledge by replying with such nonesense. Nonsense? Really? You're saying it is unreasonable to expect an ebuild maintainer to know if something in their package requires access to something in /usr at boot time?
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 12:07:44 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Hello, Neil. In what way is it patronising? It talks down to people. It insinuates that the readers don't have the wherewithal to appreciate that they have been deliberately hurt by _somebody_ rather than something just happening; that the idea of an abstraction moving is any sort of justification for anything. That only applies if you start from the position that this is a deliberate action against users, it's not, it's just the way the Linux ecosystem has developed. You call my attitude patronising, but from my viewpoint your attitude is paranoid. Somebody, somewhere was the first person to decide to put early boot software into /usr. Others may have followed him, sooner or later, but there was a single person (or perhaps a conspiracy) that did this first. Not necessarily. It most likely happened that it happened the other way round, that and increasing amount of software already in /usr became important during early boot. Who? There was no public discussion of this momentous change, not that I'm aware of. Why? It was discussed to death on this list several times, going back at least a year. I think that is entirely the right time to learn of it. If you want to know about the devs' discussions before reaching the decision, you should read gentoo-dev. Until then it was a dev issue, now it is being implemented it is a user issue. Please be aware the change I was talking about was the decision to break separate /usr, not the Gentoo devs' reaction to this breakage. Why did we only become aware of the decision to break separate /usr after it was too late to do anything about it? How could such a thing happen, if not through conspiracy? Ignorance? Not paying attention? This comes as no surprise to those that read this list. Users of other distros aren't even affected by it as they have been using initramfs/initrds for many years. I disagree, but then I have actually tried doing it. I tried, and gave up after a couple of hours. It was a challenge, but I've grown out of being fascinated by challenges for their own sake. Then I installed dracut, only to find it won't work on my system. I haven't tried genkernel. In the end, with regrets, I took /usr out of my LVM area and put it into a new partition which became the root partition. Why didn't you try genkernel? That has been creating Gentoo initrds for longer than I have been using Gentoo. But things would be easier if the kernel supported LVM. This whole discussion reminds me of a conversation I had with a senior SUSE engineer earlier this year, someone of a similar age to myself. His comment was along the lines of I remember when Linux users wanted the latest bleeding edge, now they complain every time something changes. The particular change is not progress, it's not a new feature, it's not something useful for users. It's pure breakage for no good reason. If this is what bleeding edge now means, no surprise that people complain about it. The comment wasn't about early boot, I think we were talking abut Unity at the time, but it seems relevant. Now Unity fits in with your arguments, a single organisation developed it and sprang t upon their users without warning. The same is not true of the usr/initramfs situation. -- Neil Bothwick Would a fly without wings be called a walk? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-29 2:21 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: Where are the links/pointers to the INTERNAL discussions of this decision? I seriously want to know. If gentoo devs are not willing to provide a 'paper trail' for how this decision was arrived at, and let others judge their decisions based on the merits of their arguments, then what does that say about their true motivations/intentions? The discussion happened in [1], [2], and [3]. And in similar meetings and mailing lists since months ago. [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2946 [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130924.txt [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/88282 All has been made in the open; if you subscribed to gentoo-dev, or to genoo-project, you would know about this changes since months ago. Thanks very much for this... But it would be pointless for me to subscribe to dev, since 98% of it would go straigvht over my head. Again, I don't have a problem necessarily with what is being decided (no separate /usr without an initramfs), my problem is with the implementation - giving us one MONTH before we can expect possible breakage with each and every update. How much time do you need? Six months? A year? Either one would be MUCH better than ONE month... systemd, according to its author, will never support *BSD. Thank god for small miracles...
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:53:26 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: Precisely. And, it is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), that simply keeping your old kernel/initramfs around is NOT a guarantee (it might work - and it might NOT) of being able to fallback to a known working config until you figure it out. Installing a new kernel does not magically make the old one break. If that kernel worked yesterday, it will work today. -- Neil Bothwick Your lack of organisation does not represent an emergency in my world. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 18:09:40 -0500, Dale wrote: Read the kernel docs on initramfs, you'll then understand that this is not true. Point is, they are the same to me. Both stand between grub and the kernel and add yet one more point of failure. I'm not going to nitpck on the difference between them since I view both in the same way. They are not the same. Your stating that they are the same to you is effectively saying I know what I believe, don't bother me with the real facts. Except you can never break Gentoo with a kernel update because, unlike some other distros, installing a new kernel does not uninstall the previous one. No matter how badly wrng a kernel update goes, you can always hit reset then select the old one from the GRUB menu - reinstallation doesn't come into it. Provided that the old one works tho right? What if I update and it breaks more than one thing? Then what? That's got nothing to do with the kernel, initramfs or separate /usr. Once init is running, all that is history, it's done its job. If something subsequently fails, it has nothing to do with mounting / and /usr (which is all the initramfs does). This isn't even as close as comparing apples and oranges. To ME, a init thingy is a init thingy. That's why I call them all init thingys. To ME, both are apples. One may be green and another red but both are still apples. Please, don't ever offer to feed me :-) -- Neil Bothwick Computer apathy error: don't bother striking any key. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:25:56PM -0500, Dale wrote: Tanstaafl wrote: The way I see it, if y ou cannot provide a rational answer to that question, then there is no reason for you to use this as a reason to abandon gentoo, only a reason to merge /usr into /... Simple, I have never had to resize / or /boot before. I have had to resize /usr, /var and /home several times tho. THAT is the reason. For me, it doesn't matter if it is rational to YOU or not. I am the one doing things on my puter not you or anyone else. If the init thingy fails, that will be me staring at a error message, not you. I hope that clears it up for you. Dale Most eloquently sir! -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-29 2:25 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Tanstaafl wrote: The way I see it, if you cannot provide a rational answer to that question, then there is no reason for you to use this as a reason to abandon gentoo, only a reason to merge /usr into /... Simple, I have never had to resize / or /boot before. I have had to resize /usr, /var and /home several times tho. THAT is the reason. Ok, but... everything I've read and personal experience over the years shows that space required for /usr should not change much, especially constantly grow over time (like requirements for /home can and will)- it may fluctuate (increase, decrease) *a little* over time, but it definitely should not grow substantially, so, if you had to resize it, most likely it is because you simply didn't allocate enough room to start with. For me, it doesn't matter if it is rational to YOU or not. Sorry, but rationality is not subjective. Just because something seems to be rational to you doesn't mean that it is. You have still not stated a logical, rational reason for wanting a separate /usr. I am the one doing things on my puter not you or anyone else. If the init thingy fails, that will be me staring at a error message, not you. I don't want one of those things either, but that isn't what I was questioning you about. Of course you can do whatever you want *and* are technically capable of on your own computer, but that doesn't automatically make those things logical or rational. I did see one good case for a separate /usr (someone who was using ancient PATA drives, and something about striping for performance), but that was obviously a corner case...
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 07:03:30 -0400, Greg Woodbury wrote: Except that systemd *is* why a seperate /usr is broken now. If that were true, the news item that started this thread would never have been published. Gentoo uses openrc by default, so supporting separate /usr on non-systemd systems (the majority) would be no problem. If your assertion were true, all that would be needed would be an ewarn about separate /usr hen installing systemd. -- Neil Bothwick IBM - Incredibly Bastardized Multitasking... signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:43:10 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: Except you can never break Gentoo with a kernel update because, unlike some other distros, installing a new kernel does not uninstall the previous one. No matter how badly wrng a kernel update goes, you can always hit reset then select the old one from the GRUB menu - reinstallation doesn't come into it. My understanding is that this is not true, and that a USERLAND update (LVM2, which I use, among them) can cause breakage that will cause the CURRENT kernel+initramfs to no longer boot. Is my understanding flawed? I would say so. Unless you change the LVM metadata in such a way that the tools in the initramfs cannt read it, I don't see how this can happen. And you'd have to recreates your LVs for that to occur. Totally side question: Anyone ever hear Linus' opinion of an initramfs being required to boot a system? I suppose the fact that his kernel includes an initramfs and always tries to load it when booting, and that there isn't even an option to disable this behaviour, gives a good indication of his feelings towards the idea of an initramfs. -- Neil Bothwick Q. What is the difference between Queensland and yoghurt? A. Yoghurt has an active culture. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:21:30PM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-09-28 4:17 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: I suppose that what I am about to say isn't really relevant, but it is unfortunate over the past year that people blamed udev specifically for this. It is true that it does things that don't work if /usr isn't mounted, but eudev does as well, since it is basically the same code. Who else is there to blame? We are continually being told that a separate /usr is broken, as though this were some unfortunate act of insert your deity here, much like an earthquake. This gets patronising really quickly. (Please note, I'm NOT blaming you here. I appreciate that you're as much victim as Dale or me or anyone else round here.) It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction, now it has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer devote the increasing time needed to support what has now become an dge case. So the solution is to give users one MONTH to prepare? Why not 6 months, or better, a year? What for gods sake is the rush??? Where are the links/pointers to the INTERNAL discussions of this decision? I seriously want to know. If gentoo devs are not willing to provide a 'paper trail' for how this decision was arrived at, and let others judge their decisions based on the merits of their arguments, then what does that say about their true motivations/intentions? The discussion happened in [1], [2], and [3]. And in similar meetings and mailing lists since months ago. [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2946 [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130924.txt [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/88282 You forgot [4]. [4] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/235575 I was actually against it initially. After reading and understanding where the linux ecosystem is going, my position evolved to support it. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 29/09/2013 12:55, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: Am 29.09.2013 10:28, schrieb Alan McKinnon: On 29/09/2013 10:25, Mick wrote: On Sunday 29 Sep 2013 06:29:37 Walter Dnes wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 06:09:40PM -0500, Dale wrote Most likely, I'll install Kubuntu to start. Then I may roam around and test other distros until I find one I like. Thing is, I already have a starting point. I'm already looking. http://forums.funtoo.org/viewtopic.php?id=2265 and they also dislike systemd. I think I could get to like it. See also http://bugs.funtoo.org/browse/FL-34 Very interesting! This looks as a logical way to put udev back in its userspace box and stop it breaking the OS, or did I understand it incorrectly? Exherbo might be worth a look too[1]. It's a sort-of Gentoo fork using the portage tree and PMS; plus Ciaran strikes me as the kind of guy who *would* expend massive effort to find a way round current udev and systemd. [1] I didn't look myself. I have no idea what Exherbo's stance is on this matter. why do you bring up udev and systemd AT ALL? They are not the problem or the reason why seperate /usr is prone to break. I fell victim to the sheer amount of fud around systemd and udev and typed without thinking enough. s/current udev and systemd/the root cause/g -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 29/09/2013 13:58, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: Am 29.09.2013 13:03, schrieb Greg Woodbury: On 09/29/2013 06:55 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: why do you bring up udev and systemd AT ALL? They are not the problem or the reason why seperate /usr is prone to break. Except that systemd *is* why a seperate /usr is broken now. Parts of the libraries that systemd depend on we *deliberately* placed in /usr despite the fact that they are needed to bbring the system to an operational state. For *years* things required to boot the system were defined to be in the root file system, and items not required until after mounting had been accomplished were to be placed in /usr. BTW: There is a standard (The File System Hierarch Standard - FSS) that existed and described this behaviour. It was killed off by deliberate vendor refusals to support or adhere to it. In frustration, the folks involved simply gave up. things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not the root cause of the problem. The problems were caused by people saying that seperate /usr was a good idea, so / would not fill up and similar idiocies. The problems were caused by people saying that lvm is a good idea - for desktops. Those people who are fighting against the kernel auto assembling raids are to blame too. Systemd is just another point in a very long list. Volker, we agree. The problem as I see it is that we have an artificial, arbitrary separation between boot time stuff and something that happens later stuff. There is no clear definition of what these things are and the only real technical criteria advanced thus far is quoted above: after mounting had been accomplished That worked in the 80s when SysV came out. But times move on, new methods and hardware were developed and computing is now a very different beast to what it was 30 years ago. Nowadays we have a boatload of actions that can/may be needed to happen before fstab can be read to mount the rest of the system. /usr has become, whether we like it or not, an indespensable part of the userland start up process, and the only way out of this is to have some guarantees in place. We already have a perfectly good one - the root file system is guaranteed to be mounted by the kernel before init is called. If that filesystem does not contain /usr then a rather sophisticated hack is available to ensure that /usr is available, and it is an initramfs. I do beleive the choice really is that clear - provide that guarantee or be stuck forever with old code, hardware and methods. Just because SysV worked well for ages does not mean it's rules must persist through time. Everything changes in this worls, and our game changes faster than most other things. Let's not cling to sacred cows when the world has observably moved on. None of this means I think systemd is good (or bad). Maybe it's over-engineered, but at least someone has the balls to stand up and try deal with the actual problem. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 2:11 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:21:30PM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-09-28 4:17 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: I suppose that what I am about to say isn't really relevant, but it is unfortunate over the past year that people blamed udev specifically for this. It is true that it does things that don't work if /usr isn't mounted, but eudev does as well, since it is basically the same code. Who else is there to blame? We are continually being told that a separate /usr is broken, as though this were some unfortunate act of insert your deity here, much like an earthquake. This gets patronising really quickly. (Please note, I'm NOT blaming you here. I appreciate that you're as much victim as Dale or me or anyone else round here.) It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction, now it has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer devote the increasing time needed to support what has now become an dge case. So the solution is to give users one MONTH to prepare? Why not 6 months, or better, a year? What for gods sake is the rush??? Where are the links/pointers to the INTERNAL discussions of this decision? I seriously want to know. If gentoo devs are not willing to provide a 'paper trail' for how this decision was arrived at, and let others judge their decisions based on the merits of their arguments, then what does that say about their true motivations/intentions? The discussion happened in [1], [2], and [3]. And in similar meetings and mailing lists since months ago. [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2946 [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130924.txt [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/88282 You forgot [4]. [4] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/235575 I was actually against it initially. After reading and understanding where the linux ecosystem is going, my position evolved to support it. Thanks for the link, William, and for all the work you have done to bring Gentoo to modern standards. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 2:11 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:21:30PM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-09-28 4:17 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: I suppose that what I am about to say isn't really relevant, but it is unfortunate over the past year that people blamed udev specifically for this. It is true that it does things that don't work if /usr isn't mounted, but eudev does as well, since it is basically the same code. Who else is there to blame? We are continually being told that a separate /usr is broken, as though this were some unfortunate act of insert your deity here, much like an earthquake. This gets patronising really quickly. (Please note, I'm NOT blaming you here. I appreciate that you're as much victim as Dale or me or anyone else round here.) It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction, now it has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer devote the increasing time needed to support what has now become an dge case. So the solution is to give users one MONTH to prepare? Why not 6 months, or better, a year? What for gods sake is the rush??? Where are the links/pointers to the INTERNAL discussions of this decision? I seriously want to know. If gentoo devs are not willing to provide a 'paper trail' for how this decision was arrived at, and let others judge their decisions based on the merits of their arguments, then what does that say about their true motivations/intentions? The discussion happened in [1], [2], and [3]. And in similar meetings and mailing lists since months ago. [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2946 [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130924.txt [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/88282 You forgot [4]. [4] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/235575 I was actually against it initially. After reading and understanding where the linux ecosystem is going, my position evolved to support it. Thanks for the link, William, and for all the work you have done to bring Gentoo to modern standards. modern = what enforced by udev (aka systemd)? Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 29/09/2013 19:43, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-28 6:46 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: Except you can never break Gentoo with a kernel update because, unlike some other distros, installing a new kernel does not uninstall the previous one. No matter how badly wrng a kernel update goes, you can always hit reset then select the old one from the GRUB menu - reinstallation doesn't come into it. My understanding is that this is not true, and that a USERLAND update (LVM2, which I use, among them) can cause breakage that will cause the CURRENT kernel+initramfs to no longer boot. Is my understanding flawed? No, this can happen in theory. It's quite simple to describe in somewhat abstract terms: Imagine for example that LVM makes a backwards-incompatible change to it's metadata. You are warned about this and take care to update your kernel so that it can deal with the new metadata by including support for both formats. And you forget to update the initramfs. Reboot. Oops. This is merely highly inconvenient, not the end of the world. Download a very recent rescue disk on another computer and boot with that to effect the repair. Then leave work and make your local publican's day whilst you vent your fury yet again Point is, this is not a situation unique to kernels, userlands and initramfs. That kind of error can occur in so many different ways (eg deploy a seriously broken linker and loader, or simply uninstall bash on a RHEL4 host), it's just that when it happens in the circumstances you ask about, it's one of the most inconvenient errors in a huge list. This is why we sysadmins have jobs - we are supposed to have subtantial clue and be able to predict and avoid such goofs. Totally side question: Anyone ever hear Linus' opinion of an initramfs being required to boot a system? Never read it myself, but I'll hazard a guess: He detests it with a passion calling it a grotesque hack, but tolerates it because binary distros need it and no-one has come up with something better (i.e. it sucks less)? -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 29/09/2013 19:59, Tanstaafl wrote: I've been told that this shouldn't be a big deal... while I am a (barely) passable linux sys admin Allow me to forward an opinion. The above is not true, not even close. Don't knock yourself, you don't deserve it :-) In my day job I get to meet many people, and vast fleets of them are paid obscene amounts of money to do sysadmin work. I have an unprintable opinion of most of these folks (I'm tired of cleaning up after them and they mess they leave). You on the other hand would wipe the floor with easily 95% of those clowns. Seriously. And that goes for just about everyone else on this list who has been around a while. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: One thing that you seem to be missing here. Before Gentoo, I used Mandrake. It had a init thingy. It caused me much grief and is one reason I left Mandrake. I also didn't like the upgrade process either but one reason I chose Gentoo is no init thingy. I wanted to be rid of that. Now, whether it is udev or not, here comes that stupid init thingy just because someone doesn't want to put files where they should be which is not inside /usr. So, given my history with the init thingy, if I do use a init thingy and it fails for whatever reason, I'll be installing something else. I done went down the road of trying to fix one of those stupid things and I have no plan or desire to do so again. I'm also not going to spend hours reinstalling Gentoo either. If, more than likely when, the init thingy fails, I'll be installing something else and I'll most my last sign off message here. One thing about Linux, there are plenty of distros to pick from . I love Gentoo but I like to be able to boot up without dealing with a init thingy that I have to fix when it goes belly up. Dale I don't know why people keep humoring this kind of explanation for systemd, udev, or /usr FUD, but this is not a rational way to think. It's the same kind of excuse to say I'm never going to use any kind of Linux, even Android, because I tried it 3 or 4 times when it was on floppies, and I couldn't get it to work. I'm really sorry about your terrible experience with init thingies in the past, but you've got to face the facts: 1) most distros today, Kubuntu included, bundle an init thingy and it works flawlessly for them. 2) you really, seriously, have to own up to the fact that your init thingy failing was very likely your fault (because of 1) 3) managing init thingies has gotten ridiculously easy over time as compared to when you manually had to build them Especially that number 2 part. I mean, let's not forget that character of Gentoo as a distribution. Or heck, even *nix distributions in general. *nix distributions give you a lot of tools to arrange your systems the way you want, i.e. choice, but it is always implicitly under the assumption that the choice you're making is an *informed* choice. That's why you're asked to read the manual, or check the readmes, or check the sample configs, and in this day and age, do a basic search for working examples, before asking questions. *nix is not, and has never been about being polite to users who don't know what they are doing, and has always been about being efficient to users who do. I've been recommended to put it over the top bluntly before, so: 1) STOP. FREAKING. BEING. IRRATIONAL. 2) STOP BLAMING INIT THINGIES FOR YOUR MISTAKES. THE DAMNED THINGS WORK. 3) If you're scared of doing an init thingy *manually*, just read and do the howto of the simplest init thingy manager in town (dracut? genkernel?). It surely takes less time and effort than migrating to Kubuntu or whatever. -- This email is:[ ] actionable [x] fyi[x] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate[ ] soon [x] none
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 29/09/2013 17:41, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Sep 29, 2013 3:33 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com mailto:alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] Exherbo might be worth a look too[1]. It's a sort-of Gentoo fork using the portage tree and PMS; plus Ciaran strikes me as the kind of guy who *would* expend massive effort to find a way round current udev and systemd. [1] I didn't look myself. I have no idea what Exherbo's stance is on this matter. Exherbo recommends installing systemd [1]. Sabayon installs systemd by default [2]. Funtoo is considering running GNOME =3.8 in a container so systemd doesn't impact the rest of the system [3] (which by the way looks like an interesting idea). However, in the same link Daniel Robbins says: [...] from my perspective, I think it is simply so people can run GNOME. I do like GNOME 3.6. I like their new UI. It would be nice to run 3.8. I don't care about systemd. It is simply a dep of GNOME. That is all. I see that as being open to the idea of using systemd in the future. It doesn't say that they'll never support systemd, as others would. Well, users; for the people that actually write the code, the majority seems to like systemd, or at least don't have a problem with it. Anyhow, many in this thread forget that it was the OpenRC maintainer the one that proposed the change to stop supporting a separate /usr without an initramfs. If you use OpenRC, and have a separate /usr without an initramfs, and *anything * breaks in your machine, you get to keep the pieces. No (official) support for you. It doesn't matter if you use udev, eudev (which is the same, just emasculated), nor mdev. OpenRC will start assuming an early available /usr; that's why its maintainer championed the change. It needs it to actually compete with systemd. So even Funtoo will need the same requirement, unless they switch to runit. As others have said, this is not really related to systemd/udev. It's OpenRC, the official and (still) recommended init system for Gentoo, the one that is making the change. Thanks for that info. I don't keep current with the Gentoo-derived distros as gentoo itself works great for me. And about time, if you ask me. Agreed. I myself fought this change in my head for ages. And changed my mind for the same reasons so many other people have done so too. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 29/09/2013 19:55, Tanstaafl wrote: [snip] I have *never* merged a critical filesystem on a critical server like this before. Please see the news item for what it actually is, not something else. I see it as an ultimatum that I *must* change a server that has been running flawlessly for years, or face breakage at some point in the NEAR future. I also view this as a potential 'shot across the bow' warning that systemd is coming and will be shoved down our throats, like it or not. Maybe it isn't, but judging solely by recent events, I think that is much more likely than not. William himself clarified in this thread why he pushed for this change to happen, and it has nothing to do with systemd. As for what it takes to get your system in line with what the news item says, it usually is as simple as moving some files around and editing fstab. Of course, you still need to do your planning and research, especially listing out how much space you have where an is it enough. But that is just routine sysadmin investigation stuff as is always done before embarking on any change or update. An analogy might be the manufacturer telling you your car is subject to a recall to replace a brake item under warranty, and your insurance telling you to do it sometime this month or face having your insurance voided. Yeah, it's inconvenient but once done is actually not such a big deal. mechanics work on brakes all the time all over the world and very very few people have accidents as a result. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-29 4:09 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 29/09/2013 19:59, Tanstaafl wrote: I've been told that this shouldn't be a big deal... while I am a (barely) passable linux sys admin Allow me to forward an opinion. The above is not true, not even close. Don't knock yourself, you don't deserve it :-) Lol!!! At first I thought you were saying that it wasn't true that merging /usr into / shouldn't be a big deal - and I was about to start gnashing my teeth (again). Thanks Alan, your words are very kind... and I'll just leave it at that... ;)
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 02:45:05PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote On 2013-09-29 2:25 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Tanstaafl wrote: The way I see it, if you cannot provide a rational answer to that question, then there is no reason for you to use this as a reason to abandon gentoo, only a reason to merge /usr into /... Simple, I have never had to resize / or /boot before. I have had to resize /usr, /var and /home several times tho. THAT is the reason. Ok, but... everything I've read and personal experience over the years shows that space required for /usr should not change much, especially constantly grow over time (like requirements for /home can and will)- it may fluctuate (increase, decrease) *a little* over time, but it definitely should not grow substantially, so, if you had to resize it, most likely it is because you simply didn't allocate enough room to start with. For me, it doesn't matter if it is rational to YOU or not. Sorry, but rationality is not subjective. Just because something seems to be rational to you doesn't mean that it is. You have still not stated a logical, rational reason for wanting a separate /usr. Here's my version of LVM without the overhead of LVM to allow maximum flexibity, without the overhead of LVM. * /dev/sda is the entire 1 terabyte drive (extended partition) * /dev/sda5 is 200 *MEGA*bytes (YES! 200 * 10^6). It's the rootfs and physically contains / and /boot, etc, etc. It also has empty directories /home, /opt, /var, /usr, and /tmp * /dev/sda6 is swap, a few gigabytes * /dev/sda7 is the rest of the hard drive. It is mounted as /home. It contains directories bindmounts/opt bindmounts/var bindmounts/usr and bindmounts/tmp * Note the following excerpt from /etc/fstab /dev/sda5 / ext2 noatime,nodiratime,async 0 1 /dev/sda7 /home ext4 noatime,nodiratime,async 0 1 /home/bindmounts/opt/opt auto bind 0 0 /home/bindmounts/var/var auto bind 0 0 /home/bindmounts/usr/usr auto bind 0 0 /home/bindmounts/tmp/tmp auto bind 0 0 /dev/sda6 none swap sw The rootfs is currently 22% used, so no worries there. I originally adopted this setup years ago when I was bouncing around between distros. It allowed me to change to an entirely different distro without blowing away my user directory. Even today, it gives me maximum flexibility without the overhead of LVM. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:23:20 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: Here's my version of LVM without the overhead of LVM to allow maximum flexibity, without the overhead of LVM. This gives you one of the advantages of LVM, the ability to use space on a single drive as your needs change. It doesn't allow you t use multiple drives, use different filesystems or filesystem options for different mount points, prevent one filesystem from stealing space from another (although you can do this with quotas) or use snapshots. -- Neil Bothwick The three Rs of Microsoft support: Retry, Reboot, Reinstall. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-29 2:25 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Tanstaafl wrote: The way I see it, if you cannot provide a rational answer to that question, then there is no reason for you to use this as a reason to abandon gentoo, only a reason to merge /usr into /... Simple, I have never had to resize / or /boot before. I have had to resize /usr, /var and /home several times tho. THAT is the reason. Ok, but... everything I've read and personal experience over the years shows that space required for /usr should not change much, especially constantly grow over time (like requirements for /home can and will)- it may fluctuate (increase, decrease) *a little* over time, but it definitely should not grow substantially, so, if you had to resize it, most likely it is because you simply didn't allocate enough room to start with. So my experience doesn't matter any then? My /usr does vary and sometimes varies quite a bit. That is why I had to resize the thing. Saying that I didn't make it large enough to begin with isn't the point. When people use LVM, the reason they use it is so that we can resize things when needed. For me, it doesn't matter if it is rational to YOU or not. Sorry, but rationality is not subjective. Just because something seems to be rational to you doesn't mean that it is. You have still not stated a logical, rational reason for wanting a separate /usr. And what is ratinal for you, is not rational to me. Since you can dismiss mine, I can dismiss yours too. Funny how that works huh? For ME, it is logical/rational for me to have the setup like I have it. I did it this way to speciffically avoid the init thingy and be flexible when needed. If I wanted one, I would have used one when I first installed Gentoo and not only that, put everything but /boot on LVM. I am the one doing things on my puter not you or anyone else. If the init thingy fails, that will be me staring at a error message, not you. I don't want one of those things either, but that isn't what I was questioning you about. Of course you can do whatever you want *and* are technically capable of on your own computer, but that doesn't automatically make those things logical or rational. I did see one good case for a separate /usr (someone who was using ancient PATA drives, and something about striping for performance), but that was obviously a corner case... You may not since you are not sitting in MY chair. My statements are not trying to change the way you run your puter, but yours seem to be trying to get me to change mine. I don't want to change mine when it comes to adding a init thingy to the boot process. Simple as that. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 29/09/2013 23:32, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:23:20 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: Here's my version of LVM without the overhead of LVM to allow maximum flexibity, without the overhead of LVM. This gives you one of the advantages of LVM, the ability to use space on a single drive as your needs change. It doesn't allow you t use multiple drives, use different filesystems or filesystem options for different mount points, prevent one filesystem from stealing space from another (although you can do this with quotas) or use snapshots. thread_derail And it also prevents him from using The One True Filesystem That Will Rule Them All and In the Darkness Bind Them: ZFS /thread_derail -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 18:09:40 -0500, Dale wrote: Read the kernel docs on initramfs, you'll then understand that this is not true. Point is, they are the same to me. Both stand between grub and the kernel and add yet one more point of failure. I'm not going to nitpck on the difference between them since I view both in the same way. They are not the same. Your stating that they are the same to you is effectively saying I know what I believe, don't bother me with the real facts. They are the same to me as yet one more point of failure that I DO NOT want. I have dealt with those in the past and I don't want either of them and I don't care of it is called cute teddy bears or whatever. My point still stands, it is one more thing between grub and the kernel and I don't want it. Except you can never break Gentoo with a kernel update because, unlike some other distros, installing a new kernel does not uninstall the previous one. No matter how badly wrng a kernel update goes, you can always hit reset then select the old one from the GRUB menu - reinstallation doesn't come into it. Provided that the old one works tho right? What if I update and it breaks more than one thing? Then what? That's got nothing to do with the kernel, initramfs or separate /usr. Once init is running, all that is history, it's done its job. If something subsequently fails, it has nothing to do with mounting / and /usr (which is all the initramfs does). If I select what to boot in grub and it fails, there I sit. If I try another and it fails, there I sit. I have enough issues at times already. I don't want one more that already has a bad, VERY bad, history with me. I have enough fun with the kernel at times. This isn't even as close as comparing apples and oranges. To ME, a init thingy is a init thingy. That's why I call them all init thingys. To ME, both are apples. One may be green and another red but both are still apples. Please, don't ever offer to feed me :-) You would be surprised, I am one heck of a cook. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Mark David Dumlao wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: One thing that you seem to be missing here. Before Gentoo, I used Mandrake. It had a init thingy. It caused me much grief and is one reason I left Mandrake. I also didn't like the upgrade process either but one reason I chose Gentoo is no init thingy. I wanted to be rid of that. Now, whether it is udev or not, here comes that stupid init thingy just because someone doesn't want to put files where they should be which is not inside /usr. So, given my history with the init thingy, if I do use a init thingy and it fails for whatever reason, I'll be installing something else. I done went down the road of trying to fix one of those stupid things and I have no plan or desire to do so again. I'm also not going to spend hours reinstalling Gentoo either. If, more than likely when, the init thingy fails, I'll be installing something else and I'll most my last sign off message here. One thing about Linux, there are plenty of distros to pick from . I love Gentoo but I like to be able to boot up without dealing with a init thingy that I have to fix when it goes belly up. Dale I don't know why people keep humoring this kind of explanation for systemd, udev, or /usr FUD, but this is not a rational way to think. It's the same kind of excuse to say I'm never going to use any kind of Linux, even Android, because I tried it 3 or 4 times when it was on floppies, and I couldn't get it to work. I'm really sorry about your terrible experience with init thingies in the past, but you've got to face the facts: 1) most distros today, Kubuntu included, bundle an init thingy and it works flawlessly for them. 2) you really, seriously, have to own up to the fact that your init thingy failing was very likely your fault (because of 1) 3) managing init thingies has gotten ridiculously easy over time as compared to when you manually had to build them Especially that number 2 part. I mean, let's not forget that character of Gentoo as a distribution. Or heck, even *nix distributions in general. *nix distributions give you a lot of tools to arrange your systems the way you want, i.e. choice, but it is always implicitly under the assumption that the choice you're making is an *informed* choice. That's why you're asked to read the manual, or check the readmes, or check the sample configs, and in this day and age, do a basic search for working examples, before asking questions. *nix is not, and has never been about being polite to users who don't know what they are doing, and has always been about being efficient to users who do. I've been recommended to put it over the top bluntly before, so: 1) STOP. FREAKING. BEING. IRRATIONAL. 2) STOP BLAMING INIT THINGIES FOR YOUR MISTAKES. THE DAMNED THINGS WORK. 3) If you're scared of doing an init thingy *manually*, just read and do the howto of the simplest init thingy manager in town (dracut? genkernel?). It surely takes less time and effort than migrating to Kubuntu or whatever. Already tried making a init thingy from a really nice howto, Gentoo one I think. Failed big time. Heck, the init thingy barely even loaded before it failed. I seem to recall posting on here. As far as I know, no one knew how to fix it or what was wrong. The dracut one worked but if it ever failed, I'm in the same boat, no freaking clue how to fix it or where to start and if I can't boot, no help either. So just to update, my most recent experience wasn't to good either. It isn't all about YEARS ago. It is also about more recent attempts. One thing about Kubuntu and other distros, it installs in a fraction of time that Gentoo does. Also, I don't have to fiddle with the init thingy, it does it and hopefully correctly. If not, reinstall. If that happens to often, try something else. May be FUD to you but it is real to me. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 06:10:46PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote From REDHATs or SuSEs perspective seperate /usr is not a problem. Putting lvm/bluetooth/mdraid/whateverthefuckyoumightneed there was and is not a problem too. Thanks to initrdsco. And if I wanted to run bleeping Redhat Fedora, I'd run bleeping Redhat Fedora. I want GNU/Linu-x, not GNOME/Lenna-x. They are using them for AGES and it works fine. * Loading firmware into the kernel worked fine for AGES, until Kay Seivers broke udev... https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303 * Everybody's single-NIC machine came up with eth0 for AGES, until Kay Seivers broke udev. And calling the new setup predictable is George Orwell 1984 doublespeak. Let's see you walk up to an unknown machine and predict what the NIC is going to come up as. * Separate /usr worked fine for AGES, until... Do you see a pattern developing here? -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Mark David Dumlao wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: One thing that you seem to be missing here. Before Gentoo, I used Mandrake. It had a init thingy. It caused me much grief and is one reason I left Mandrake. I also didn't like the upgrade process either but one reason I chose Gentoo is no init thingy. I wanted to be rid of that. Now, whether it is udev or not, here comes that stupid init thingy just because someone doesn't want to put files where they should be which is not inside /usr. So, given my history with the init thingy, if I do use a init thingy and it fails for whatever reason, I'll be installing something else. I done went down the road of trying to fix one of those stupid things and I have no plan or desire to do so again. I'm also not going to spend hours reinstalling Gentoo either. If, more than likely when, the init thingy fails, I'll be installing something else and I'll most my last sign off message here. One thing about Linux, there are plenty of distros to pick from . I love Gentoo but I like to be able to boot up without dealing with a init thingy that I have to fix when it goes belly up. Dale I don't know why people keep humoring this kind of explanation for systemd, udev, or /usr FUD, but this is not a rational way to think. It's the same kind of excuse to say I'm never going to use any kind of Linux, even Android, because I tried it 3 or 4 times when it was on floppies, and I couldn't get it to work. I'm really sorry about your terrible experience with init thingies in the past, but you've got to face the facts: 1) most distros today, Kubuntu included, bundle an init thingy and it works flawlessly for them. 2) you really, seriously, have to own up to the fact that your init thingy failing was very likely your fault (because of 1) 3) managing init thingies has gotten ridiculously easy over time as compared to when you manually had to build them Especially that number 2 part. I mean, let's not forget that character of Gentoo as a distribution. Or heck, even *nix distributions in general. *nix distributions give you a lot of tools to arrange your systems the way you want, i.e. choice, but it is always implicitly under the assumption that the choice you're making is an *informed* choice. That's why you're asked to read the manual, or check the readmes, or check the sample configs, and in this day and age, do a basic search for working examples, before asking questions. *nix is not, and has never been about being polite to users who don't know what they are doing, and has always been about being efficient to users who do. I've been recommended to put it over the top bluntly before, so: 1) STOP. FREAKING. BEING. IRRATIONAL. 2) STOP BLAMING INIT THINGIES FOR YOUR MISTAKES. THE DAMNED THINGS WORK. 3) If you're scared of doing an init thingy *manually*, just read and do the howto of the simplest init thingy manager in town (dracut? genkernel?). It surely takes less time and effort than migrating to Kubuntu or whatever. Already tried making a init thingy from a really nice howto, Gentoo one I think. Failed big time. Heck, the init thingy barely even loaded before it failed. I seem to recall posting on here. As far as I know, no one knew how to fix it or what was wrong. The dracut one worked but if it ever failed, I'm in the same boat, no freaking clue how to fix it or where to start and if I can't boot, no help either. So just to update, my most recent experience wasn't to good either. It isn't all about YEARS ago. It is also about more recent attempts. Meanwhile, for more stupidly over the top blunt trauma: Please grow up and read your excuses for what they are. You (1) failed to make an init thingy manually (2) refuse to use a known working system that thousands use on account of GREMLINS and (3) threaten to replace it with another working system that thousands use. but no gremlins here! At the end of they day, you don't want to learn how to do it the hard way. So do it the easy way and be done with your troubles. If you don't want to do it EITHER way fine, but stop pretending that it's anything else but a problem with your attitude. You're being exactly the kind of user that unpaid volunteer devs don't want to waste time having to support. -- This email is:[ ] actionable [ ] fyi[x] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate[ ] soon [x] none
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-29 5:35 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Tanstaafl wrote: Ok, but... everything I've read and personal experience over the years shows that space required for /usr should not change much, especially constantly grow over time (like requirements for /home can and will)- it may fluctuate (increase, decrease) *a little* over time, but it definitely should not grow substantially, so, if you had to resize it, most likely it is because you simply didn't allocate enough room to start with. So my experience doesn't matter any then? Dale, that is NOT what I said, and nothing I am saying is intended to be offensive. My /usr does vary and sometimes varies quite a bit. The question you should be asking yourself then, is WHY? That is why I had to resize the thing. Saying that I didn't make it large enough to begin with isn't the point. It is precisely the point... The fact is, there is nothing in there that *should* vary much (once your system is fully installed) - unless you are using it in some non-standard way, and/or not occasionally cleaning out /usr/src (as Alan pointed out)... and if either of those is the case, then as I said, it is your own fault that you needed to resize it. Don't you see how contradictory it is to say that you will change from gentoo to distro-x because gentoo has made a change that requires you to either merge /usr into / or use an 'init thingy', when distro-x, that you say you will change to, USES AN INIT THINGY? Doesn't that sound irrational to you? What would be logical and rational would be to either: a) learn how to use an init thingy (which from some more reading I've been doing, doesn't look quite as bad as it seemed initially), or b) determine what is a sane size for /usr, make / an appropriate size to subsume it, and merge it into /. Now, if you don't have enough room in / to merge it, then obviously it will be more painful, but once it is done, you never have to worry about it again - and no init thingy. When people use LVM, the reason they use it is so that we can resize things when needed. Yes, and I use LVM - but again, this is only important for dirs/mnt points that have the potential to consume more and more disk space... that potential is simply not there for (a properly configured and maintained) /usr... And what is rational for you, is not rational to me. Since you can dismiss mine, I can dismiss yours too. Funny how that works huh? Yep... and you can also dismiss my claim that jumping off that 1,000' cliff won't result in you going splat, but it doesn't change the fact that if you jump off of it, you WILL go splat. I just wouldn't get the chance to say I told you so.
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 30.09.2013 00:06, schrieb Walter Dnes: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 06:10:46PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote From REDHATs or SuSEs perspective seperate /usr is not a problem. Putting lvm/bluetooth/mdraid/whateverthefuckyoumightneed there was and is not a problem too. Thanks to initrdsco. And if I wanted to run bleeping Redhat Fedora, I'd run bleeping Redhat Fedora. I want GNU/Linu-x, not GNOME/Lenna-x. luckily nobody forces you to install gnome, systemd or pulseaudio. You don't have to do anything unless you: have /usr on a seperate partition no initrd. If you have no initrd: genkernel it will create one for you. Very easy to use. They are using them for AGES and it works fine. * Loading firmware into the kernel worked fine for AGES, until Kay Seivers broke udev... https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303 different story. * Everybody's single-NIC machine came up with eth0 for AGES, until Kay Seivers broke udev. And calling the new setup predictable is George Orwell 1984 doublespeak. Let's see you walk up to an unknown machine and predict what the NIC is going to come up as. and you could predict with the old setup? If think these new names are as stupid as it gets, but I had enough pain in the past with multi-nic boxes shuffling eth0, eth1, ethn+1... randomly on reboots. That was fun. * Separate /usr worked fine for AGES, until... Do you see a pattern developing here? seperate /usr has stopped working fine AGES AGO. Just some setups were lucky enough not to stumble over the wreckage and fall into the shards. Only worse than breakage is silent breakage that seems to be ok. Until the day where some minor and arcane change fucks you up. I have to admit: I don't use init'thingies' - because I don't have to. But back when I played around with different RAID setups I was prepared to use one - because I am not stupid. If I want something to work that needs an 'initthingie', I don't complain and bitch, I read up on 'initthingies'. Besides, AFAIR Dale is the only one who had ever problems with 'initthingies' on this list. And Dale has a lot of problems with stuff that works for everybody else.
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 29.09.2013 19:58, schrieb Tanstaafl: On 2013-09-28 4:17 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: I suppose that what I am about to say isn't really relevant, but it is unfortunate over the past year that people blamed udev specifically for this. It is true that it does things that don't work if /usr isn't mounted, but eudev does as well, since it is basically the same code. Who else is there to blame? We are continually being told that a separate /usr is broken, as though this were some unfortunate act of insert your deity here, much like an earthquake. This gets patronising really quickly. (Please note, I'm NOT blaming you here. I appreciate that you're as much victim as Dale or me or anyone else round here.) It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction, now it has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer devote the increasing time needed to support what has now become an dge case. So the solution is to give users one MONTH to prepare? Why not 6 months, or better, a year? What for gods sake is the rush??? one month to run genkernel is more than enough. And that this point was approaching was clear - what, 2 years ago? At least? Where are the links/pointers to the INTERNAL discussions of this decision? I seriously want to know. If gentoo devs are not willing to provide a 'paper trail' for how this decision was arrived at, and let others judge their decisions based on the merits of their arguments, then what does that say about their true motivations/intentions? marc.info -- gentoo-dev Again, I don't have a problem necessarily with what is being decided (no separate /usr without an initramfs), my problem is with the implementation - giving us one MONTH before we can expect possible breakage with each and every update. No, you already can expect possible breakage with each and every update. In 4 weeks they will stop listening to your complains. The other HUGE thing that worries me, and has me seriously considering switching to FreeBSD NOW, is, maybe there really is a secret, underlying ulterior motive to force both systemd AND an initramfs for everyone in ALL use cases. If that is the case, then say so now, and give those of us who do not want this advanced notice, and I'll just plan on setting my gentoo box to never update on Nov 1, and start working on learning FreeBSD and if necessary, pay someone to help me migrate services to it. so do it. You will be a lot happier there. I am sure. With forcing llvm etc
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 23:33:55 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: And it also prevents him from using The One True Filesystem That Will Rule Them All and In the Darkness Bind Them: ZFS Now if that was included in the kernel, none of this thread would matter :) -- Neil Bothwick Life's a cache, and then you flush... signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Mark David Dumlao wrote: On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Mark David Dumlao wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: One thing that you seem to be missing here. Before Gentoo, I used Mandrake. It had a init thingy. It caused me much grief and is one reason I left Mandrake. I also didn't like the upgrade process either but one reason I chose Gentoo is no init thingy. I wanted to be rid of that. Now, whether it is udev or not, here comes that stupid init thingy just because someone doesn't want to put files where they should be which is not inside /usr. So, given my history with the init thingy, if I do use a init thingy and it fails for whatever reason, I'll be installing something else. I done went down the road of trying to fix one of those stupid things and I have no plan or desire to do so again. I'm also not going to spend hours reinstalling Gentoo either. If, more than likely when, the init thingy fails, I'll be installing something else and I'll most my last sign off message here. One thing about Linux, there are plenty of distros to pick from . I love Gentoo but I like to be able to boot up without dealing with a init thingy that I have to fix when it goes belly up. Dale I don't know why people keep humoring this kind of explanation for systemd, udev, or /usr FUD, but this is not a rational way to think. It's the same kind of excuse to say I'm never going to use any kind of Linux, even Android, because I tried it 3 or 4 times when it was on floppies, and I couldn't get it to work. I'm really sorry about your terrible experience with init thingies in the past, but you've got to face the facts: 1) most distros today, Kubuntu included, bundle an init thingy and it works flawlessly for them. 2) you really, seriously, have to own up to the fact that your init thingy failing was very likely your fault (because of 1) 3) managing init thingies has gotten ridiculously easy over time as compared to when you manually had to build them Especially that number 2 part. I mean, let's not forget that character of Gentoo as a distribution. Or heck, even *nix distributions in general. *nix distributions give you a lot of tools to arrange your systems the way you want, i.e. choice, but it is always implicitly under the assumption that the choice you're making is an *informed* choice. That's why you're asked to read the manual, or check the readmes, or check the sample configs, and in this day and age, do a basic search for working examples, before asking questions. *nix is not, and has never been about being polite to users who don't know what they are doing, and has always been about being efficient to users who do. I've been recommended to put it over the top bluntly before, so: 1) STOP. FREAKING. BEING. IRRATIONAL. 2) STOP BLAMING INIT THINGIES FOR YOUR MISTAKES. THE DAMNED THINGS WORK. 3) If you're scared of doing an init thingy *manually*, just read and do the howto of the simplest init thingy manager in town (dracut? genkernel?). It surely takes less time and effort than migrating to Kubuntu or whatever. Already tried making a init thingy from a really nice howto, Gentoo one I think. Failed big time. Heck, the init thingy barely even loaded before it failed. I seem to recall posting on here. As far as I know, no one knew how to fix it or what was wrong. The dracut one worked but if it ever failed, I'm in the same boat, no freaking clue how to fix it or where to start and if I can't boot, no help either. So just to update, my most recent experience wasn't to good either. It isn't all about YEARS ago. It is also about more recent attempts. Meanwhile, for more stupidly over the top blunt trauma: Please grow up and read your excuses for what they are. You (1) failed to make an init thingy manually (2) refuse to use a known working system that thousands use on account of GREMLINS and (3) threaten to replace it with another working system that thousands use. but no gremlins here! At the end of they day, you don't want to learn how to do it the hard way. So do it the easy way and be done with your troubles. If you don't want to do it EITHER way fine, but stop pretending that it's anything else but a problem with your attitude. You're being exactly the kind of user that unpaid volunteer devs don't want to waste time having to support. And that is your opinon which is pretty much useless and wrong to boot. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 16:48:22 -0500, Dale wrote: They are not the same. Your stating that they are the same to you is effectively saying I know what I believe, don't bother me with the real facts. They are the same to me as yet one more point of failure that I DO NOT want. I have dealt with those in the past and I don't want either of them and I don't care of it is called cute teddy bears or whatever. My point still stands, it is one more thing between grub and the kernel and I don't want it. You may have the same reason for not wanting to use either, but that does not make them the same. I detest both cabbage and spinach, I refuse to eat either, but I wouldn't try to claim they were the same vegetable. Provided that the old one works tho right? What if I update and it breaks more than one thing? Then what? That's got nothing to do with the kernel, initramfs or separate /usr. Once init is running, all that is history, it's done its job. If something subsequently fails, it has nothing to do with mounting / and /usr (which is all the initramfs does). If I select what to boot in grub and it fails, there I sit. If I try another and it fails, there I sit. I have enough issues at times already. I don't want one more that already has a bad, VERY bad, history with me. I have enough fun with the kernel at times. Once you have installed a kernel, you never update it. You may compile another one with different settings, or install a different version, but the kernel you installed is not updated. Your kernel is about the only thing not affected by, or at risk of being broken by, updates, because nothing is ever overwritten, unlike just about every other update. To ME, a init thingy is a init thingy. That's why I call them all init thingys. To ME, both are apples. One may be green and another red but both are still apples. Please, don't ever offer to feed me :-) You would be surprised, I am one heck of a cook. Never tempt me with food, I may take you up on it one day. Just don't ever offer me any of those green thingies :P -- Neil Bothwick I'm in shape ... Rounds a shape isn't it? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 16:35:21 -0500, Dale wrote: So my experience doesn't matter any then? My /usr does vary and sometimes varies quite a bit. That is why I had to resize the thing. Saying that I didn't make it large enough to begin with isn't the point. When people use LVM, the reason they use it is so that we can resize things when needed. On a desktop system, it is not unusual for /usr usage to vary, as you install, and maybe remove, various packages as your needs change. As for not making it large enough to begin with, isn't one of the advantages of using LVM that you don't need to try to guess future usage and only need to make the LV large enough for today's needs. That's one of the main reasons I used LVM, before The One True Way[tm] was available on Linux. Keep on using LVM if it is right for you, and it apparently is, but you will have to compromise on using an initramfs to do so reliably in the future. I seriously recommend you look at the Wiki page on making your own initramfs. One of the problems people have with them, and I was one of them, is that they are a black box, a binary blob that does some magic to get your system booted. Playing around with creating your own shows you just how simple and basic they really are, a busybox binary and a couple of lines of shell script to mount / and /usr. If you fear the unknown, get to know it. -- Neil Bothwick Having children will turn you into your parents. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 18:06:15 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: * Loading firmware into the kernel worked fine for AGES, until Kay Seivers broke udev... https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303 * Everybody's single-NIC machine came up with eth0 for AGES, until Kay Seivers broke udev. And calling the new setup predictable is George Orwell 1984 doublespeak. Let's see you walk up to an unknown machine and predict what the NIC is going to come up as. * Separate /usr worked fine for AGES, until... Do you see a pattern developing here? Yes, everything was working fine until Kay Sievers single-handedly broke it all. Meanwhile the entire Linux community sat back and watched this wanton destruction and not one of them lifted a finger to prevent it. That is the most believable scenario posted so far. -- Neil Bothwick 0 and 1. Now what could be so hard about that? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-29 5:35 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Tanstaafl wrote: Ok, but... everything I've read and personal experience over the years shows that space required for /usr should not change much, especially constantly grow over time (like requirements for /home can and will)- it may fluctuate (increase, decrease) *a little* over time, but it definitely should not grow substantially, so, if you had to resize it, most likely it is because you simply didn't allocate enough room to start with. So my experience doesn't matter any then? Dale, that is NOT what I said, and nothing I am saying is intended to be offensive. My /usr does vary and sometimes varies quite a bit. The question you should be asking yourself then, is WHY? To me, it doesn't matter why it varies, it just does. After each update, I check to see what the partitions look like. The biggest change was going from KDE3 to KDE4. That seemed to make things grow a good bit. Other things I install/uninstall seem to change things too. That is why I had to resize the thing. Saying that I didn't make it large enough to begin with isn't the point. It is precisely the point... The fact is, there is nothing in there that *should* vary much (once your system is fully installed) - unless you are using it in some non-standard way, and/or not occasionally cleaning out /usr/src (as Alan pointed out)... and if either of those is the case, then as I said, it is your own fault that you needed to resize it. Don't you see how contradictory it is to say that you will change from gentoo to distro-x because gentoo has made a change that requires you to either merge /usr into / or use an 'init thingy', when distro-x, that you say you will change to, USES AN INIT THINGY? Doesn't that sound irrational to you? No, it doesn't. On Gentoo, I HAVE to make the thing but don't know how to fix it if it breaks. On other distros, I don't have to make the thing. If it fails, at worst, I can reinstall in much less time than I would spend trying to fix the silly thing. Since I don't know how to fix one and can't boot to get help, then the computer may as well be a screen door on a submarine. As I posted before, if something breaks and I can't fix it, I replace it with something else that works. That could be why /usr varies so much too. What would be logical and rational would be to either: a) learn how to use an init thingy (which from some more reading I've been doing, doesn't look quite as bad as it seemed initially), or b) determine what is a sane size for /usr, make / an appropriate size to subsume it, and merge it into /. Now, if you don't have enough room in / to merge it, then obviously it will be more painful, but once it is done, you never have to worry about it again - and no init thingy. Actually, history proves that wrong too. I started using LVM because I got tired of having to rearrange my partitions and resize things. That was the whole reason I switched to LVM when I did. Ask anyone on this list that has been here long ehough. I have had to move things around LOTS of times because things grow including /usr and /var. /home is a different and unrelated thing. Funny thing is, I did it several times and never even posted about it. When people use LVM, the reason they use it is so that we can resize things when needed. Yes, and I use LVM - but again, this is only important for dirs/mnt points that have the potential to consume more and more disk space... that potential is simply not there for (a properly configured and maintained) /usr... See above. And what is rational for you, is not rational to me. Since you can dismiss mine, I can dismiss yours too. Funny how that works huh? Yep... and you can also dismiss my claim that jumping off that 1,000' cliff won't result in you going splat, but it doesn't change the fact that if you jump off of it, you WILL go splat. I just wouldn't get the chance to say I told you so. And what you are saying is not changing anything either. I don't want to mess with the init thingy. If I do, first time it fails and a solution isn't obvious, time to move on to something else. I like my 16 year old washing machine and I have repaired things on it a few times. If it breaks and I can't fix it, time for a new washing machine. Most likely, a different brand and model too. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/28/2013 09:04 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 28/09/2013 13:32, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-27 7:10 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: No really,*why exactly*? Because that was the RECOMMENDED WAY IN THE GENTOO HANDBOOK when I first set this system up many years ago. This was something almost all of us recommended way back then. Lord only knows why we recommeded that. Maybe it was small drives (which didn't have), maybe it was different mount options (which I never did and never saw anyone else do either), or maybe it was for thin clients (which I only ever saw in use once - Shuttleworth labs in University of Cape Town). So why did we all (and I included myself) recommend this so much? Dude, I have no idea, but I *think* we were cargo-culting more than any other single factor. I have no philosophical reason reason to stick with it, only a (maybe irrational) fear of breaking things if I attempt to merge it back into /. This, combined with an intense (also maybe irrational) desire to avoid like the plague using an initramfs, is why this decision to FORCE me into a position of possibly having to break my system (either by a filed attempt at merging /usr into /, or a failed attampt at using an initramfs). No-one is forcing you to do anything, the news item did not say that. It says that if you do it, the devs will not support you and you are on your own. It also says that in the dev's opinion, the day when you can no longer support it either is probably not too far away I too sincerely hope eudev bypasses this issue. This has nothing to do with eudev, not with udev The main thing about this that pisses me off is the lack of enough warning... one month? Really? One month to compleyelt rebuild a seerver that has been running flawlessly for many years, just because someone doesn't like something that has been done for many years? First, it is not one month, it is much longer. We've all been whinging about the issue for most of this year. Two, why do you think you need to rebuild the entire machine? You don't need to do that just to merge two filesystems. To merge two filesystems, you just merge two filesystems. You don't rebuild anything. You might have some downtime though Please see the news item for what it actually is, not something else. Curious; how is merging two filesystems done? I don't have a separate /usr and am completely unaffected by this change, but it's somewhat interesting to me. /usr stores some pretty important data on it, and I imagine you'd need to mount it somewhere else in order to move the files from it to /'s /usr dir. Is a Live environment recommended instead? How would you mitigate the leftover partition, assuming it's not adjacent to /'s partition? I don't run an initramfs, thankfully, but I keep a pretty simple system in terms of filesystems: /, /boot, and /home. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSSLhZAAoJEJUrb08JgYgHFk4H/3e4LobiR0KXODLC1xznXbY0 Q923rabxPj82VDS8bP+hNx9YopKLJUlpqAtvQG982Kztw/8UUY2Q4euLfrXlN7ah pNNC0UG8KGpN9K4RF1tcEVwtXkS23f9s6GdgRPRFWq0ngJq9iJXCEW134jlcXQel vbcRiJMtmKzpnyDIrs7XZxOWhV0V5EQc1uFq4r97ydKZeOjXCpHXtYTjD8dGv3ZH 0GHQgjOFpo5WU0eIN06Jt862b/WjE7RVQZJvSY8DrXkdIDcUO5PsVHsc/Van5pMV pzQ2xV6Idh1AhQQ3meZzzAAcHzDWgXCHqnBM/gwnFCFSL/zRcFThdwapObfIVMI= =tAhS -END PGP SIGNATURE-
