o: Re: Fwd: Re: Bug#571136: please remove useless devices from
devices.tar.gz
Hi,
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 10, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > We have a bug report with a patch by Marco against debootstrap (see
> > attachment), which changes how devices are generated; I
Hi,
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 10, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > We have a bug report with a patch by Marco against debootstrap (see
> > attachment), which changes how devices are generated; I can't really
> > tell how much this might affect all of you (especially with debootstrap
> It is not supp
On Jan 10, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> We have a bug report with a patch by Marco against debootstrap (see
> attachment), which changes how devices are generated; I can't really
> tell how much this might affect all of you (especially with debootstrap
It is not supposed to, since both hurd and kfree
Hi ports people,
I'm not exactly sure what happened with debian-ports@ (I think there
were some planned changes but I don't remember the outcome), so I'm
explicitly sending this to bsd/hurd lists since I suspect the linux
ports are less likely to be affected by this.
We have a bug report with a p
Marco d'Itri writes:
> On Jan 08, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
>> If there are some doubts that devices.tar.gz could still be needed in
>> the future then I would start with a smaller patch which keeps all the
>> old code around.
> Here it is.
> If somebody will report valid uses for devices.tar.gz t
On Jan 08, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> If there are some doubts that devices.tar.gz could still be needed in
> the future then I would start with a smaller patch which keeps all the
> old code around.
Here it is.
If somebody will report valid uses for devices.tar.gz then the old code
can be enabled
On Jan 08, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> debootstrap is not only used to install Debian on Debian, and being a
> tad too aggressive with this removal might not be the best move forward.
I welcome reporting use cases which would require a full static /dev.
The only one I can think about is "installing
On Dec 31, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> a) submit a patch which rips out of debootstrap all the devices.tar.gz
>stuff, or
And here it is.
--
ciao,
Marco
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 1020cbc..0bbb2c0 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -2,17 +2,9 @@
VERSION := $(shell sed 's/.*(\(.*
On Dec 30, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> makedev has been orphaned for years and deboostrap should just use
> mknod, without even devices.tar.gz.
Dear debootstrap maintainers, what do you want me to do?
a) submit a patch which rips out of debootstrap all the devices.tar.gz
stuff, or
b) submit a patc
On Feb 23, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> devices.tar.gz should contain only the devices which are strictly
> needed, even if udev is not installed the others can be created by
> makedev.
2015 update: the correct[1] list of devices which should be created by
debootstrap to support containers without udev
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 571136 debootstrap should not use makedev?
Bug #571136 [debootstrap] please remove useless devices from devices.tar.gz
Changed Bug title to 'debootstrap should not use makedev?' from 'please remove
useless devices from devices.tar.gz'
> t
retitle 571136 debootstrap should not use makedev?
thanks
I really really wish that debootstrap could stop creating the /dev/ram*
devices which have been useless since the end of 2.4 kernels
[...]
Md/infinity: the real fix for /dev/ram* is probably for d-i to stop
using makedev, s
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 07:58:17PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Package: debootstrap
> Version: 1.0.20
> Severity: normal
>
> devices.tar.gz should contain only the devices which are strictly
> needed, even if udev is not installed the others can be created by
> makedev.
>
> At least the ram* dev
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> devices.tar.gz should contain only the devices which are strictly
> needed, even if udev is not installed the others can be created by
> makedev.
>
> At least the ram* devices should be removed because they were needed
> by initrds and are not useful anymore.
Then they shoul
On Feb 24, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> > FYI, the only devices needed by udev to start are null and console.
> Aren't those created by devtmpfs? Or will Debian not use that?
If devtmpfs is mounted, yes. Currently it is not.
And I believe it's a good idea to have these on the underlying
filesystem any
Marco d'Itri writes:
> FYI, the only devices needed by udev to start are null and console.
Aren't those created by devtmpfs? Or will Debian not use that?
--
Thanks,
Feri.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact list
Package: debootstrap
Version: 1.0.20
Severity: normal
devices.tar.gz should contain only the devices which are strictly
needed, even if udev is not installed the others can be created by
makedev.
At least the ram* devices should be removed because they were needed
by initrds and are not useful an
17 matches
Mail list logo
