Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

I think this might be one reason that /etc/mtab was deprecated in favor of a symlink to /proc/mounts :P On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 07:22:36 -0500 as excerpted: > > > 4. In the runlevel paradigm you usually

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 07:22:36 -0500 as excerpted: > 4. In the runlevel paradigm you usually think of services running > inside a runlevel (perhaps this isn't strictly true, but most people > think this way, in part because runlevels don't change much). In > systemd this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:46:34 -0500 as excerpted: > >> When systemd says "target" - think "virtual service." The equivalent in >> openrc would be an init.d script that has dependencies but which doesn't >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > > dracut does not assist those who do not want generic kernel > configurations. Unfortunately, the handbook does not do a good job in > saying that the initramfs generation and generic kernel configurations > are optional. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > > Dracut handling it well is not up for dispute. When I checked last year, > dracut simply did not tell systemd to use this functionality because it > was unnecessary functionality that only served to slowed down the >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:11:42 -0500 Richard Yao wrote: > dracut does not assist those who do not want generic kernel > configurations. Unfortunately, the handbook does not do a good job in > saying that the initramfs generation and generic kernel configurations > are optional.

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:46:34 -0500 as excerpted: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> >> Initial shutdown is via two targets (as opposed to specific services), > > Since not everybody in this thread may be familiar with systemd, I'll >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On 02/17/2016 01:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> Genkernel's initramfs generation was what we endorsed for the most >> part, until dracut came around. it's hard to say what "most" are >> doing but i expect dracut and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On 02/17/2016 12:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Richard Yao wrote: >> Systemd installs that go back into the initramfs at shutdown are rare >> because there is a >> hook for the initramfs to tell systemd that it should re-exec it and very >> few

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/17/2016 09:30 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:19:52 -0500 Rich Freeman > wrote: > >> Is dracut still not widely used? I know that it was all the >> fashion for a decade or two for every distro to build

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > Genkernel's initramfs generation was what we endorsed for the most > part, until dracut came around. it's hard to say what "most" are > doing but i expect dracut and genkernel based initramfs's make up > the vast

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 17/02/16 12:30 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:19:52 -0500 Rich Freeman > wrote: > >> Is dracut still not widely used? I know that it was all the >> fashion for a decade or two for every distro to build

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:19:52 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > Is dracut still not widely used? I know that it was all the fashion > for a decade or two for every distro to build their own initramfs, but > I don't get why anybody wouldn't just make the switch - it is far more >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > Systemd installs that go back into the initramfs at shutdown are rare because > there is a > hook for the initramfs to tell systemd that it should re-exec it and very few > configurations > do that. Even fewer that do it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

> On Feb 16, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > William Hubbs posted on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:41:29 -0600 as excerpted: > >> What I'm trying to figure out is, what to do about re-mounting file >> systems read-only. >> >> How does systemd do this? I didn't find an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > Initial shutdown is via two targets (as opposed to specific services), Since not everybody in this thread may be familiar with systemd, I'll just add a quick definition. When systemd says "target" - think "virtual

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: Does OpenRC really need mount-ro

William Hubbs posted on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:41:29 -0600 as excerpted: > What I'm trying to figure out is, what to do about re-mounting file > systems read-only. > > How does systemd do this? I didn't find an equivalent of the mount-ro > service there. For quite some time now, systemd has