Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] 2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs: add news item
Arsen:: > k...@aspodata.se writes: > > Eli Schwartz: ... > >> +Systems which have /usr and / on separate filesystems have always > >> required a > >> +dedicated initramfs to bring up both partitions. ... > Is there a need to state this? ... "Always required" is false. Not supported by gentoo is correct. Regards, /Karl Hammar
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] 2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs: add news item
Hello Eli, Maybe add also a link to: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Early_Userspace_Mounting (IMHO this article is a better starting point than https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Custom_Initramfs ) Many Greetings, Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] 2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs: add news item
On 1/2/24 4:15 AM, k...@aspodata.se wrote: > Eli Schwartz: > [...] >> +Systems which have /usr and / on separate filesystems have always required a >> +dedicated initramfs to bring up both partitions. Systems where both /usr >> and / >> +are on the same filesystem may use an initramfs if they wish, or choose not >> +to. > [...] > > Well, that is not technically correct, just have the required kernel > drivers (eg. AHCI and ext2/4) compiled in and use the same busybox > commands as in the initrd, but placed in /, to bring up the system > to the point that /usr is mounted. > > I have a static dev, compiled in drivers, busybox init and mount, and > separate / and /usr on a box here, works perfectly well. > Soo, add a clause about what gentoo supports out of the box and that > you can make it work if you wish. > If there is a general wish I can write an article about how to make > it work. You need the required kernel drivers regardless of having /usr on a separate partition. The problem here is solely about after the kernel has booted, mounted the / filesystem, and run init -- init needs to fully bring the system up. While it's no doubt possible to do this with finely-crafted busybox usage, there's a lot of ways it could break if you aren't *very* careful, and that should not require ongoing support. It's firmly in the "you break it, you bought it" category. But I have no objection if it's mentioned on the wiki in the initramfs article or somewhere similar. I don't think this is a blocker for dropping hacks like usr-ldscript.eclass usage, though. -- Eli Schwartz OpenPGP_0x84818A6819AF4A9B.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] 2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs: add news item
On 1/2/24 3:22 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Tue, 02 Jan 2024, Eli Schwartz wrote: > >> +++ >> b/2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs/2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs.txt > > The short-name is rather long. GLEP 42 strongly recommends to stay below > 20 characters: > https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0042.html#news-item-identities > >> +Title: Separate /usr now requires an initramfs >> +Author: Eli Schwartz >> +Content-Type: text/plain >> +Posted: 2024-01-02 >> +Revision: 1 >> +News-Item-Format: 2.0 >> +Display-If-Installed: sys-apps/baselayout[split-usr] > > This is not a valid header. (Format 2.0 doesn't have Content-Type.) Thanks, I was too hasty in my double-checking -- I fixed all 3 formatting bugs locally. >> +In 2013, Gentoo policy determined that separate /usr without an initramfs >> was >> +officially no longer supported: >> + >> +- https://projects.gentoo.org/qa/policy-guide/filesystem.html#pg0202 >> +- >> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/gentoo-news.git/tree/2013/2013-09-27-initramfs-required/2013-09-27-initramfs-required.en.txt?id=a79dd69b0cca439bc0c483c9193c79e0554819d0 > > The 2013-09-27-initramfs-required news item already said: > > | Linux systems which have / and /usr on separate file systems but do not > | use an initramfs will not be supported starting on 01-Nov-2013. > | > | If you have / and /usr on separate file systems and you are not > | currently using an initramfs, you must set one up before this date. > | Otherwise, at some point on or after this date, upgrading packages > | will make your system unbootable. > > It is also in the Handbook since 2014: > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:AMD64/Installation/Kernel#Optional:_Building_an_initramfs > > What has changed that we would need another news item? > > Ulrich As Sam said, the idea is to give people a heads up that they have to do something to adapt -- given it's been 10+ years, it feels a bit not-good to suddenly carry out the original promise without warning. This is a good reason why when something is promised, it should actually be done on schedule... Given everything was already decided and signed off on, there's no need to rehash whether or not to do it. We can just do it. But users should get a heads up that there is something they need to do to ensure their system will be working -- and 10+ years is simply too much of a gap between the time of the news and the time of fulfillment. -- Eli Schwartz
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] 2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs: add news item
k...@aspodata.se writes: > Eli Schwartz: > [...] >> +Systems which have /usr and / on separate filesystems have always required a >> +dedicated initramfs to bring up both partitions. Systems where both /usr >> and / >> +are on the same filesystem may use an initramfs if they wish, or choose not >> +to. > [...] > > Well, that is not technically correct, just have the required kernel > drivers (eg. AHCI and ext2/4) compiled in and use the same busybox > commands as in the initrd, but placed in /, to bring up the system > to the point that /usr is mounted. > > I have a static dev, compiled in drivers, busybox init and mount, and > separate / and /usr on a box here, works perfectly well. > Soo, add a clause about what gentoo supports out of the box and that > you can make it work if you wish. Is there a need to state this? To me, it feels obvious, and falls into the category of 'you can do it but don't expect much help'. As an example of entries in this category, I used to use runit for service management and supervision, and only used the openrc boot target. Naturally, this worked, but it worked due to me maintaining it, and had no Gentoo-provided support. The same is true for many, many configurations, so I don't see the need to state that explicitly. > If there is a general wish I can write an article about how to make > it work. > > Regards, > /Karl Hammar > > --- > Aspö Data > Lilla Aspö 148 > S-742 94 Östhammar > Sweden -- Arsen Arsenović signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] 2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs: add news item
Eli Schwartz: [...] > +Systems which have /usr and / on separate filesystems have always required a > +dedicated initramfs to bring up both partitions. Systems where both /usr and > / > +are on the same filesystem may use an initramfs if they wish, or choose not > +to. [...] Well, that is not technically correct, just have the required kernel drivers (eg. AHCI and ext2/4) compiled in and use the same busybox commands as in the initrd, but placed in /, to bring up the system to the point that /usr is mounted. I have a static dev, compiled in drivers, busybox init and mount, and separate / and /usr on a box here, works perfectly well. Soo, add a clause about what gentoo supports out of the box and that you can make it work if you wish. If there is a general wish I can write an article about how to make it work. Regards, /Karl Hammar --- Aspö Data Lilla Aspö 148 S-742 94 Östhammar Sweden
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] 2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs: add news item
Ulrich Mueller writes: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] >> On Tue, 02 Jan 2024, Eli Schwartz wrote: > >> +++ >> b/2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs/2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs.txt > > The short-name is rather long. GLEP 42 strongly recommends to stay below > 20 characters: > https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0042.html#news-item-identities > >> +Title: Separate /usr now requires an initramfs >> +Author: Eli Schwartz >> +Content-Type: text/plain >> +Posted: 2024-01-02 >> +Revision: 1 >> +News-Item-Format: 2.0 >> +Display-If-Installed: sys-apps/baselayout[split-usr] > > This is not a valid header. (Format 2.0 doesn't have Content-Type.) > >> +In 2013, Gentoo policy determined that separate /usr without an initramfs >> was >> +officially no longer supported: >> + >> +- https://projects.gentoo.org/qa/policy-guide/filesystem.html#pg0202 >> +- >> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/gentoo-news.git/tree/2013/2013-09-27-initramfs-required/2013-09-27-initramfs-required.en.txt?id=a79dd69b0cca439bc0c483c9193c79e0554819d0 > > The 2013-09-27-initramfs-required news item already said: > > | Linux systems which have / and /usr on separate file systems but do not > | use an initramfs will not be supported starting on 01-Nov-2013. > | > | If you have / and /usr on separate file systems and you are not > | currently using an initramfs, you must set one up before this date. > | Otherwise, at some point on or after this date, upgrading packages > | will make your system unbootable. > > It is also in the Handbook since 2014: > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:AMD64/Installation/Kernel#Optional:_Building_an_initramfs > > What has changed that we would need another news item? The fact that we continued to support it means we had various confused users (like in the cited bug 868306). The job was never finished, with usr-ldscript remaining pervasive in the tree, and then it appearing supported - or at least not unsupported. > > Ulrich > > [[End of PGP Signed Part]]
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] 2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs: add news item
>> +++ >> b/2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs/2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs.txt > The short-name is rather long. [...] In fact, the filename is also invalid by GLEP 42. Sorry for missing this the first time. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] 2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs: add news item
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2024, Eli Schwartz wrote: > +++ > b/2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs/2024-01-02-separate-usr-now-requires-an-initramfs.txt The short-name is rather long. GLEP 42 strongly recommends to stay below 20 characters: https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0042.html#news-item-identities > +Title: Separate /usr now requires an initramfs > +Author: Eli Schwartz > +Content-Type: text/plain > +Posted: 2024-01-02 > +Revision: 1 > +News-Item-Format: 2.0 > +Display-If-Installed: sys-apps/baselayout[split-usr] This is not a valid header. (Format 2.0 doesn't have Content-Type.) > +In 2013, Gentoo policy determined that separate /usr without an initramfs was > +officially no longer supported: > + > +- https://projects.gentoo.org/qa/policy-guide/filesystem.html#pg0202 > +- > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/gentoo-news.git/tree/2013/2013-09-27-initramfs-required/2013-09-27-initramfs-required.en.txt?id=a79dd69b0cca439bc0c483c9193c79e0554819d0 The 2013-09-27-initramfs-required news item already said: | Linux systems which have / and /usr on separate file systems but do not | use an initramfs will not be supported starting on 01-Nov-2013. | | If you have / and /usr on separate file systems and you are not | currently using an initramfs, you must set one up before this date. | Otherwise, at some point on or after this date, upgrading packages | will make your system unbootable. It is also in the Handbook since 2014: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:AMD64/Installation/Kernel#Optional:_Building_an_initramfs What has changed that we would need another news item? Ulrich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
