Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote:
* Micha??
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10
Michał Górny wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On 01/21/2012 01:34 PM, Dale wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are
being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't
need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the
recent so called improvements.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:34:39 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 17
Michał Górny wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:34:39 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
On 01/21/2012 01:34 PM, Dale wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are
being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't
need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the
recent so called
On 01/21/2012 03:45 PM, Dale wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
On 01/21/2012 01:34 PM, Dale wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are
being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't
need the initramfs even if It was on a regular
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote:
* Micha??
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote:
* Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
I guess, he means keeping udev in / ?
Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote:
* Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
I guess, he means
Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.dewrote:
* Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.orgschrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote:
* Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
I guess,
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote:
* Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 20:05:47 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
[snip]
You should consider taking like 1 or 2 hours of your precious time to
read about the use and meaning of various directories in the
filesystem.
The FHS gives different meaning to directories than the systemd
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Ralph Sennhauser s...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 20:05:47 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
[snip]
You should consider taking like 1 or 2 hours of your precious time to
read about the use and meaning of various directories in the
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:41:04 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Remind me of a single good reason. Last time I heard those were mostly
hacks and laziness.
Here's one: ability to share disk space automatically between /usr
and /home (implication: must be same filesystem; useful because
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
I think it is more like people do that when they have a good reason
to do so. I plan to put mine on /usr when I get the chance and know
that this init crap isn't going to break my rig. It's not being
awesome either.
Remind me of a single good
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:34:34 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:40:01 -0600
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
I keep hoping that all the smart people involved in this will see
the mess it is creating. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:44:31 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
I think it is more like people do that when they have a good reason
to do so. I plan to put mine on /usr when I get the chance and
know that this init crap isn't going to
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:03:50 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:44:31 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
I think it is more like people do that when they have a good
reason to do so. I plan to put
Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:34:34 -0600
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:40:01 -0600
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
I keep hoping that all the smart people involved in this will see
the mess it is creating. I'm not the sharpest
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:34:34 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
I already stated the reason. I'm going to put /usr on LVM. That is
not only a good reason, it is a GREAT reason.
It is a hack.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:34:34 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:40:01 -0600
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
I keep hoping that all the smart people involved in this
Alec Warner wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Michał Górnymgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
It is a hack.
Your opinion is noted, but that doesn't make better or worse than
other folks ideas.
-A
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
I agree. It doesn't break things that was working either.
Dale
* Micha?? Górny mgo...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
I guess, he means keeping udev in / ?
cu
--
--
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/
phone:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigelt weig...@metux.de wrote:
* Micha?? Górny mgo...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
I guess, he means keeping udev in / ?
Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote:
* Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
I guess, he means keeping udev in / ?
Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:56:11 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote:
* Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
I guess,
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:03:15 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
The mess was created by people shouting 'hey, real men use
separate /usr for no good reason! Be awesome like us'.
You appear to be confusing I don't understand this with no-one
understands this.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Took me days to get dracut to work. Where does 15 minutes come from? How
much time does it take when the initramfs fails?
I've used dracut on a few VMs now and on my main Gentoo box. My
experience has been that it didn't take
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10.01.2012 19:56, Dale wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico
Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote:
* Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages
statically?
I
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:56:11 -0600
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote:
* Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages
Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Took me days to get dracut to work. Where does 15 minutes come from? How
much time does it take when the initramfs fails?
I've used dracut on a few VMs now and on my main Gentoo box. My
experience has been
Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10.01.2012 19:56, Dale wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico
Weigeltweig...@metux.de wrote:
* Micha?? Górnymgo...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:40:01 -0600
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
I keep hoping that all the smart people involved in this will see
the mess it is creating. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but
I'm sharp enough to see the mess this is going to create and I'm
just a desktop user. I
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:58:53 +0100
Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
Concern is to sustain the freedom of choice that brought me to Gentoo.
Please provide systemd as an option.
And provide sysvinit/openrc as an option.
Do __not__ make an initrd mandatory.
And I'd like to have the
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:58:53 +0100
Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
Concern is to sustain the freedom of choice that brought me to Gentoo.
Please provide systemd as an option.
And provide sysvinit/openrc as an
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 00:47:21 +0100
Lars Wendler polynomia...@gentoo.org wrote:
Am Freitag 06 Januar 2012, 17:07:20 schrieb Alex Alexander:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 08:35:32AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org
wrote:
If people are
On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 08:01:17PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote
Great. Perhaps you could create some unusual setups (perhaps in a
full-VM), so we can build an test platform on it.
IIRC the main problem are scenarios where /usr is not available
at boot, eg. has to be mounted from somewhere
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
do you need udevd in runlevel boot at all (for sysvinit)?
Given either your kernel knows its root hardware device driver or has
an initrd to load needed modules to mount the root filesystem.
You can have CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and
On 01/08/2012 02:58 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
Hi,
do you need udevd in runlevel boot at all (for sysvinit)?
Given either your kernel knows its root hardware device driver or has
an initrd to load needed modules to mount the root filesystem.
You can have CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 22:58:58 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
An alternative approach to a having a bulky initramfs recovery
partition like yours would be to put the content of a livecd/usb
recovery disk onto a spare partition, and configure your lean busybox
initramfs to mount that
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 19:41:39 -0500
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
In my 3 gig /usr directory, over 2 gigs are devoted to
Gentoo-specific stuff that a binary distro like Redhat does not
require. What do we do if /usr is read-only? Symlink or bindmount
onto it?
Remount read/write
* Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org schrieb:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote
This is just our donation, I'm hoping others will join in.
For the actual development, half of the resources should be
fine, but testing dozens of uncommon scenarios will eat up
a
On 01/07/2012 07:58 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
That seems like an awfully large initramfs to load into memory for every
boot, just to have it wiped from memory after switching to the real
root. It's fine as long as you're not trying to shave every last
microsecond off of your boot time though.
The
Am Freitag 06 Januar 2012, 17:07:20 schrieb Alex Alexander:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 08:35:32AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
If people are really interested in keeping a tight, self contained
root, we need to:
-
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 08:35:32AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
If people are really interested in keeping a tight, self contained root,
we need to:
- establish a [tight] list of software we consider critical for /
-
* William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Hi folks,
a significant change is taking place with several upstreams that will affect
us in gentoo, so I wanted to bring it to the list for discussion.
Udev, kmod (which is a replacement for module-init-tools which will be needed
by =udev-176),
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 18:50:49 +0100
Enrico Weigelt weig...@metux.de wrote:
I don't want to repeat all the arguments, why these Windows-imitator
guys are completely wrong, anymore. (IMHO already been said in this
thread).
Yes, having a single locations for all applications is so-windows. We
* Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Please don't try to bring the GnomeOS vision of having MacOS without
paying for it to my computing experience ...
+10
cu
--
--
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service --
* Micha?? G?rny mgo...@gentoo.org schrieb:
I don't want to repeat all the arguments, why these Windows-imitator
guys are completely wrong, anymore. (IMHO already been said in this
thread).
Yes, having a single locations for all applications is so-windows. We
should go the other way
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 19:41:27 +0100
Enrico Weigelt weig...@metux.de wrote:
* Micha?? G?rny mgo...@gentoo.org schrieb:
I don't want to repeat all the arguments, why these
Windows-imitator guys are completely wrong, anymore. (IMHO
already been said in this thread).
Yes, having a
* Micha?? G?rny mgo...@gentoo.org schrieb:
I was talking about other things, like giving up the typical
unix-style separation of subsystems, all the bloating happening
in certain DE's and then pulling down that bloat to the system
level (just starting w/ dbus)
Yes, three arguments and
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 01:51:26PM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote
No no no, the idea is that once all binaries are in /usr, you can easily
share /usr between different systems and do updates in a sane way.. You
can also mount /usr read-only, but still have / be read-write.
One size does not fit
On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 19:41 -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 01:51:26PM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote
No no no, the idea is that once all binaries are in /usr, you can easily
share /usr between different systems and do updates in a sane way.. You
can also mount /usr
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote
This is just our donation, I'm hoping others will join in.
For the actual development, half of the resources should be
fine, but testing dozens of uncommon scenarios will eat up
a multiple of that.
I'm not a C programmer, bash
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:59:45 -0500
Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 19:41 -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 01:51:26PM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote
No no no, the idea is that once all binaries are in /usr, you can
easily share /usr between
On 01/05/2012 03:40 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
The FHS notion of root filesystem as a recovery partition existed long
before the relatively modern development of things like busybox and
initramfs made it more practical to use an initramfs as a recovery
partition. Anyone who wouldn't prefer to use
On 01/06/2012 07:10 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
On 01/05/2012 03:40 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
The FHS notion of root filesystem as a recovery partition existed long
before the relatively modern development of things like busybox and
initramfs made it more practical to use an initramfs as a recovery
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 07:27:49AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
2012/1/5 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation.
The FHS has a nice definition: The contents of the root filesystem
must be
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it).
While I can't speak to your comments about being unable to restart
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:08:44PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Or will /etc move to /usr too?
No, /etc isn't going anywhere.
Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it).
Obviously, you'd have
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Or will /etc move to /usr too?
No, /etc isn't going anywhere.
Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
put /etc inside your
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:02:09 -0500
Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Or will /etc move to /usr too?
No, /etc isn't going anywhere.
Are you
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 21:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:02:09 -0500
Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Or will /etc move
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 21:09:35 +
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:02:09 -0500
Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 23:06:18 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't claim they're crazy. I claim they're sacrificing
functionality, correctness, loose coupling, simplicity, well defined
behaviour, understandability and stability in order to implement
questionable new shiny
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:08:44PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Or will /etc move to /usr too?
No, /etc isn't going anywhere.
Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
put /etc
On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
[snip]
The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide
more functionality than any other init system, more correctness
(seriously, did you ever read most init scripts out there?), more well
defined behavior (all systemd systems boot
On 6 January 2012 06:14, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
[snip]
The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide
more functionality than any other init system, more correctness
(seriously, did you ever read most init scripts
On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 08:44 +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
[snip]
The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide
more functionality than any other init system, more correctness
(seriously, did you ever read most init scripts out
Michał Górny schrieb:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:47:38 +0100
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
2. switching from udev to mdev (avoids required /usr of udev)
3. some wrapper script to mount /usr before udev starts
These two should be really discouraged as a cheap, temporary solution.
We
On 3 January 2012 15:21, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 07:59:47PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote
I see three options:
1) Start migrating packages along with upstream and have everyone who
has a separate /usr (including me by the way) start using an initramfs
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
Does mdev support all the rules we have in /lib/udev/rules.d/? The
Internet is surprisingly mute on this subject, but a quick grep
through the busybox source doesn't turn up anything that suggests that
it might.
I
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
Does mdev support all the rules we have in /lib/udev/rules.d/? The
Internet is surprisingly mute on this subject, but a quick grep
through the
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:06:11 +0100
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Michał Górny schrieb:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:47:38 +0100
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
2. switching from udev to mdev (avoids required /usr of udev)
3. some wrapper script to mount /usr before udev starts
On 04-01-2012 16:37:34 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
And this part was not about the movement to /usr at all, so why do you
suggest another movement here? And while you answer that, please also
tell us, why you want to migrate packages to a different install
location without a need.
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:33:15 +0100
Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 04-01-2012 16:37:34 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
And this part was not about the movement to /usr at all, so why
do you suggest another movement here? And while you answer that,
please also tell us, why you want
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
What mistakes?
The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
thumb which becomes more and more blurry over time, and hacking
packages just to make it work.
There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation.
The
On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 18:12 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
What mistakes?
The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
thumb which becomes more and more blurry over time, and hacking
packages just to make it work.
* Olivier Crête schrieb am 04.01.12 um 18:32 Uhr:
On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 18:12 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
What mistakes?
The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
thumb which becomes more and more blurry over
2012/1/5 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation.
The FHS has a nice definition: The contents of the root filesystem
must be adequate to boot, restore, recover, and/or repair the system.
Given
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 07:27:49 +1300
Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/1/5 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation.
The FHS has a nice definition: The contents of the root
Michał Górny schrieb:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:06:11 +0100
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Michał Górny schrieb:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:47:38 +0100
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
2. switching from udev to mdev (avoids required /usr of udev)
3. some wrapper script to mount /usr
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 18:12:18 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
What mistakes?
The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
thumb which becomes more and more blurry over time, and hacking
packages just to make
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 07:27 +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
2012/1/5 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation.
The FHS has a nice definition: The contents of the root filesystem
must be adequate
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that these tools are being moved to /usr and/or duplicated to in
initrd , what is the point of a root filesystem anyway now? Just to
mount other things on? Just to store /etc ?
Or will /etc move to /usr too?
I'd
On 04-01-2012 19:50:24 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 18:12:18 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
What mistakes?
The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
thumb which becomes more and
On 04-01-2012 13:51:26 -0500, Olivier Crête wrote:
No no no, the idea is that once all binaries are in /usr, you can easily
share /usr between different systems and do updates in a sane way.. You
can also mount /usr read-only, but still have / be read-write.
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:48:03 +0100
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Defining a prefix is no hack, it is an option you can use.
Anyway, we both have probably enough packages with such a hack
installed, but i cannot find a single file in /lib/pkgconfig, not even
that dir does exist. Is
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 20:00:51 +0100
Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 04-01-2012 19:50:24 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 18:12:18 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
What mistakes?
The mistake of
On 04-01-2012 20:28:01 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
And a compiler. If I mess up some important system component, I'd
really use one. And package manager. And backup system libraries...
Time for your PXE boot from net to just bring back a sane image or so.
My PXE boot from net won't
On 04-01-2012 20:26:27 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
We use hacks to move shared libraries to rootfs, and then create one
more hack to not confuse the linker with different locations of static
and shared libraries.
So your point is that the reasons why this was originally done are now
no longer
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 07:26:05PM +0100, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
For example, to make that FHS definition be reality there are (can
be) runlevels that will only boot a system with all basic stuff
required to mount the rootfs and make root being able to login to
the local text console. These
On 01/04/2012 09:32 AM, Olivier Crête wrote:
On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 18:12 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
What mistakes?
The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
thumb which becomes more and more blurry over time, and hacking
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:49:42 -0500
Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's why you have dracut to do it for you.
Which is keyworded at this point. Stable users do what?
It's keyworded for only two arches.
This is a discussion about the future... Changing keywords is trivial
if we
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:49:42 -0500
Olivier Crêtetes...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's why you have dracut to do it for you.
Which is keyworded at this point. Stable users do what?
It's keyworded for only two arches.
And amd64 is one of them. I'd say it is a fairly
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 07:59:47PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote
I see three options:
1) Start migrating packages along with upstream and have everyone who
has a separate /usr (including me by the way) start using an initramfs
of some kind, either dracut or one that we generate specifically
Hi Walter,
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 04:51:57AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
4) Following pointers from Zac Medico and others, I've managed to get
Gentoo running with busybox's mdev, instead of udev. See
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/msg_bc91b392ee0f76376104591cdf7dc5f0.xml
Executive
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
