Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:44:57 -0700
Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/04/12 11:45, William Hubbs wrote:
There are binaries in /{bin,sbin} which link against libraries in
/usr/lib for example.
We could try to have an exact list and figure out exactly what is it
and how impacting it is. If any of those are needed for early-boot it
would be something to address nonetheless.
I have already opened bugs for many of them. But the list will increase
in time, and we'll either move a lot of libraries to /lib* or decide to
go the other way.
Did someone mentioned mentioning two cross-linked program/data trees
(well, three or four in our case) with fuzzy classification rules is
against KISS?
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
On 28/04/12 23:44, Michał Górny wrote: I have already opened bugs for many of them. But the list will increase in time, and we'll either move a lot of libraries to /lib* or decide to go the other way. repeat after me EARLY BOOT, as in initramfs. In initramfs you don't have /usr with everything there because you are supposed to mount it. If you need something (e.g. a mount helper using libs living somewhere) you need to put it there, if you don't have a way to be aware of which is where then you'll have users experiencing problems. The proper way to fix it is either fix the programs or find replacement that have less or no dependencies. Did someone mentioned mentioning two cross-linked program/data trees (well, three or four in our case) with fuzzy classification rules is against KISS? Enumerate them, I'm sick of vague problems. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
On 04/29/2012 12:04 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: On 28/04/12 23:44, Michał Górny wrote: I have already opened bugs for many of them. But the list will increase in time, and we'll either move a lot of libraries to /lib* or decide to go the other way. repeat after me EARLY BOOT, as in initramfs. In initramfs you don't have /usr with everything there because you are supposed to mount it. If you need something (e.g. a mount helper using libs living somewhere) you need to put it there, if you don't have a way to be aware of which is where then you'll have users experiencing problems. The proper way to fix it is either fix the programs or find replacement that have less or no dependencies. Maybe it's reasonable for the initramfs to utilize a config file from /etc of the future root filesystem, but having in depend on files from the future /usr seems like a strange idea. Wouldn't it make more sense to bundle all dependencies into the initramfs, so that it's mostly self-contained, rather than have it be dependent on files from the future root filesystem (or future /usr)? -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
On 29/04/12 15:40, Zac Medico wrote: Maybe it's reasonable for the initramfs to utilize a config file from /etc of the future root filesystem, but having in depend on files from the future /usr seems like a strange idea. Wouldn't it make more sense to bundle all dependencies into the initramfs, so that it's mostly self-contained, rather than have it be dependent on files from the future root filesystem (or future /usr)? Well it is a bit unreasonable even rely on foreign /etc. The root problem is that what you want to use for early boot should not have huge deps and that assumption fails for a number of reasons, I guess mostly due the fact who writes some software doesn't expect it to be run on early boot =\ lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
On 10/04/12 11:45, William Hubbs wrote:
Also, I am going to reiterate what Greg said. This is not an issue with
udev, but with the entire linux ecosystem.
As in bluez using dbus and some mount helpers requiring libraries in /usr.
There are binaries in /{bin,sbin} which link against libraries in
/usr/lib for example.
We could try to have an exact list and figure out exactly what is it and
how impacting it is. If any of those are needed for early-boot it would
be something to address nonetheless.
Also, with the appropriate documentation changes, which are being worked
on (see [1]), I feel that the statement above that newer udev can't be
stabled should be re-evaluated.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
Ulrich Mueller wrote: | 3. New udev and separate /usr partition (30 minutes) | |See [4]: Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported |configuration. If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and |alternatives should be investigated. If it isn't, a lot of |documentation will have to be updated. (And an alternative should |likely still be provided.) | | [4] | [http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo- project/msg_c96d1b724cd736702820fa5ff1547557.xml From the first reply: To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr _without_ mounting it early via an initramfs. I hope that settles that particular issue. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote: Ulrich Mueller wrote: | 3. New udev and separate /usr partition (30 minutes) | |See [4]: Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported |configuration. If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and |alternatives should be investigated. If it isn't, a lot of |documentation will have to be updated. (And an alternative should |likely still be provided.) | | [4] | [http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo- project/msg_c96d1b724cd736702820fa5ff1547557.xml From the first reply: To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr _without_ mounting it early via an initramfs. I hope that settles that particular issue. Hmm... I see that in Zac's reply, thanks for that. Unfortunately, from what I can tell, that clarification was not actually part of the proposed agenda [5], nor was it directly referenced. So the subject of the vote still seems open to interpretation. Ultimately, the council's only power is to stop things from happening under threat of expulsion from the project. I think it would be a mistake for this particular council vote to be used as the sole justification for preventing devs from committing changes that would require an initramfs for separate /usr support. It simply does not seem clear enough for that. [5] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_ac95bed78694852cd09f20a07437b805.xml signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
On 04/22/2012 10:55 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote: Ulrich Mueller wrote: | 3. New udev and separate /usr partition (30 minutes) | |See [4]: Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported |configuration. If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and |alternatives should be investigated. If it isn't, a lot of |documentation will have to be updated. (And an alternative should |likely still be provided.) | | [4] | [http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo- project/msg_c96d1b724cd736702820fa5ff1547557.xml From the first reply: To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr _without_ mounting it early via an initramfs. I hope that settles that particular issue. Hmm... I see that in Zac's reply, thanks for that. Unfortunately, from what I can tell, that clarification was not actually part of the proposed agenda [5], nor was it directly referenced. So the subject of the vote still seems open to interpretation. Yeah, it almost seems as though the council was being intentionally vague and leaving things open to interpretation. In response, we had William post about the = udev-182 tracker [1], to which Tony seemed to respond positively [2]. [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_015e73cfccbd72fa956a8bdbc2e9cdc0.xml [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_fb17ccaadc95c7f3f27d0613c13aa04e.xml -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:45:04 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:04:22PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
New udev and separate /usr partition
Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported
configuration. If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and
alternatives should be investigated. If it isn't, a lot of
documentation will have to be updated. (And an alternative should
likely still be provided.)
There is no disagreement about whether or not separate /usr will be
supported. No one has said that you can't have a separate /usr
partition.
Isn't meant /usr without initramfs, independent of how broken some
people precieve it?
Was the council aware of the tracker bug we have open where we are
tracking the documentation changes explaining how to build an
initramfs if you have a separate /usr partition [1]?
That's an effort I welcome either way. So thanks for that.
Also, I am going to reiterate what Greg said. This is not an issue
with udev, but with the entire linux ecosystem.
There are binaries in /{bin,sbin} which link against libraries in
/usr/lib for example.
With udev-182 its no longer only the ecosystem which produce some
broken products but udev itself which is broken. Otherwise we would
have gone on like we always did, right?
Also, with the appropriate documentation changes, which are being
worked on (see [1]), I feel that the statement above that newer udev
can't be stabled should be re-evaluated.
Long term newer udevs will be stabilized and I'm positive it wont take
as long as grub2 or portage-2.2 ;)
There is no particular hurry as far as I know so let's give Chainsaw
some time to look into an udev patch and don't go with the 30 day
with bug fixing rule.
Support for initramfs was rather poor until recently. For instance
dracut-0.17-r3 (haven't tested 0.18 so far) was the first to actually
produce a usable initramfs for me. Thus far I crafted them manually if
needed. Personally I would like to see the initramfs situation further
improved, this includes genkernel and dracut stable on all platforms and
then give it time to let the knowlage spread or alternatively an udev
patch which allows current setups to continue to work before the
council re-evaluates the udev stabilization again.
Cheers
Ralph
William
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407959
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:04:22PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
New udev and separate /usr partition
Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported configuration.
If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and alternatives should be
investigated. If it isn't, a lot of documentation will have to be
updated. (And an alternative should likely still be provided.)
There is no disagreement about whether or not separate /usr will be
supported. No one has said that you can't have a separate /usr
partition.
Was the council aware of the tracker bug we have open where we are
tracking the documentation changes explaining how to build an initramfs
if you have a separate /usr partition [1]?
Also, I am going to reiterate what Greg said. This is not an issue with
udev, but with the entire linux ecosystem.
There are binaries in /{bin,sbin} which link against libraries in
/usr/lib for example.
Also, with the appropriate documentation changes, which are being worked
on (see [1]), I feel that the statement above that newer udev can't be
stabled should be re-evaluated.
William
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407959
pgpUAdzbT64Xc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: New udev and separate /usr partition Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported configuration. If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and alternatives should be investigated. If it isn't, a lot of documentation will have to be updated. (And an alternative should likely still be provided.) The council has voted in favour of a separate /usr being supported (5 yes, 1 no vote). What? During the discussion, some concerns were raised that we might not be able to provide a modified or forked udev version. Chainsaw assured that if necessary, he will maintain a udev version that supports said configuration. It isn't udev that is the problem here, it's the loads of other packages. udev is just being nice and pointing out that the user has a problem. It was remarked that a solution that comprises both the forked udev version (separate /usr) and the latest versions is possible and therefore should not block either way preferred by users. How in the world are you going to support this type of thing, when it isn't udev that is the issue? And udev isn't even the problem, all you need is to mount your /usr from initramfs. So, the original proposal wasn't even a correct/valid proposal in the first place. Papering over the issue, by just keeping udev from reporting the problem is NOT a valid solution. You are shooting the messenger here. greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: The council has voted in favour of a separate /usr being supported (5 yes, 1 no vote). What? Perhaps the council should be the ones to clarify, but I think the vote only was for separate /usr being supported. The irc log seemed a bit more nuanced than perhaps came out in the summary. Maybe I'm misreading it. I didn't see anything in the log about a decision that newer versions of udev are not able to be stabled. So, as to what a separate /usr being supported means, the impression I got was don't worry if you're running it, you'll have an upgrade path. Right now it sounds like the proposed upgrade path is that some devs will fork udev and keep it running more like the current one (presumably breaking in the same situations that it already does today). And udev isn't even the problem, all you need is to mount your /usr from initramfs. So, the original proposal wasn't even a correct/valid proposal in the first place. Well, as far as I can tell the proposal that was voted on didn't even mention udev at all, or initramfs. But, as you point out using an initramfs is likely to be more reliable. I'm sure the same arguments were going around back when people were advocating for dropping bootloader support in the kernel and telling people to bugger_off_msg. An initramfs creates more flexibility, at the cost of an extra layer of software, just like grub. The main downside to it is that it tends to require more maintenance, though if you build the necessary drivers to mount /usr into the kernel I imagine that an initramfs would probably work across differing kernel versions. In any case, we should still be updating documentation/etc regardless. A better guide to dracut/genkernel would be useful no matter how this turns out. I'd like to see stable Gentoo stay current with udev in any case, but I don't mind using a forked version as long as it is of similar quality to the original. As you've pointed out already, that may not actually help people with a separate /usr, so I'd encourage people to get an initramfs working. Rich
