On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 18:22:37 -0500
"Mike Edenfield" wrote:
> I have never personally run into any case
> where I had a single /+/usr and regretted it, but I *have* encountered
> situations where I could not get /usr mounted and ended up merging it
> with /. FWIW, YMMV, etc.
And why was that, not
> From: Alan McKinnon [mailto:alan.mckin...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:08 PM
>
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:56:52 +0700
> Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> > In case you haven't noticed, since Windows 7 (or Vista, forget which)
> > Microsoft has even went the distance of splitting betwee
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:19:44 +0800
Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> > I'd certainly be happy "fixing" FHS to say that tools for mounting
> > and recovering "essential system partitions" be located in /, and
> > that these "essential system partitions" contain the tools for
> > mounting and recovering n
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Paul Colquhoun
wrote:
> I'd certainly be happy "fixing" FHS to say that tools for mounting and
> recovering "essential system partitions" be located in /, and that these
> "essential system partitions" contain the tools for mounting and recovering
> non-essential p
> The latest FHS dates from 2004, the same year as the *earliest* FUSE release
> I
> can see on the FUSE web site. I'd say a good working hypothesis is that FHS
> was simply written *before* any user-space file systems were more than an
> experimental oddity.
>
>
> > IF the system's /home di
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:27:03 Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Kevin Chadwick
wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 01:16:34 +0800
> >
> > Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> >> whatever filesystem type
> >>
> >> it is.
> >>
> >>Following this, for any distro to correctly FHS, there
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 01:16:34 +0800
> Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>
>> whatever filesystem type
>> it is.
>
>>Following this, for any distro to correctly FHS, there needs to be a
>>package manager switch to copy arbitrary packages (and depende
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> An example: A dev needs a newer version of a package. We upgrade it. It
> refuses to startup properly, but going back is out of the question because
> the dev *needs* the features only available in the new version. We check the
> (extremely) d
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:14:46 -0600
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Kevin Chadwick
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:38:15 -0600
>> > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> >
>> >> In SysV, I can *write* the
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 4:40 PM, pk wrote:
> On 2012-12-28 20:01, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> Because I prefer Gentoo?
>
> That's what I really don't understand! You say you don't want to care
> about the system which implies Fedora or any other install-and-forget
> distro. I care about the sy
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:02:54 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Again, I don't really care about the pain - in a sick sense I sort of
> like it (more if it wore high heels...) - but I'm gonna learn this
> initramfs stuff and make it work because I suspect it's at least a
> good thing to know.
I said the
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:14:46 -0600
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Kevin Chadwick
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:38:15 -0600
> > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >
> >> In SysV, I can *write* the daemon in the init script.
> >> In *that* sense, the init system te
On 2012-12-28 20:01, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> Because I prefer Gentoo?
That's what I really don't understand! You say you don't want to care
about the system which implies Fedora or any other install-and-forget
distro. I care about the system which is why I run Gentoo. Do you have
USE=* in ma
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> On Dec 29, 2012 2:18 AM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" wrote:
>>
>> Stop thinking in sshd. I can write the *whole* daemon in shell, not in
>> another script file, but inside /etc/init.d/mystupiddaemon (or
>> /etc/rc.whatever); shell is Turing-compl
On Dec 29, 2012 2:18 AM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" wrote:
>
> Stop thinking in sshd. I can write the *whole* daemon in shell, not in
> another script file, but inside /etc/init.d/mystupiddaemon (or
> /etc/rc.whatever); shell is Turing-complete, I can write in it
> anything I can write in C (or in asse
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:38:15 -0600
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> In SysV, I can *write* the daemon in the init script.
>> In *that* sense, the init system tells the daemon how to do things,
>
> Please explain, sure there is the environ
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:15 PM, pk wrote:
> On 2012-12-28 00:24, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> Well, yeah, that's the point. I want to install Gentoo in my mother's
>> PC, and never have to go to her house because someting broke.
>
> I really don't have the time nor the inclination to continue
On 12/28/12 13:15, pk wrote:
> On 2012-12-28 00:24, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> Well, yeah, that's the point. I want to install Gentoo in my mother's
>> PC, and never have to go to her house because someting broke.
>
> I really don't have the time nor the inclination to continue this but...
>
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:38:15 -0600
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> In SysV, I can *write* the daemon in the init script.
> In *that* sense, the init system tells the daemon how to do things,
Please explain, sure there is the environment that tells a daemon what
to do. No shell can tell a c daemon l
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 01:16:34 +0800
Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> whatever filesystem type
> it is.
>Following this, for any distro to correctly FHS, there needs to be a
>package manager switch to copy arbitrary packages (and dependent
>libraries) from /usr to /. As of yet not implemented.
>
Not
On 2012-12-28 00:24, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> Well, yeah, that's the point. I want to install Gentoo in my mother's
> PC, and never have to go to her house because someting broke.
I really don't have the time nor the inclination to continue this but...
Why would you in that case install Gento
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Bruce Hill
> wrote:
>> Dang, I got an Excedrin® headache!
> Heh. Mike said he was game.
It's going to have to wait a bit. I'm not going to be able to get to
this this weekend, most likely; the level of
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Bruce Hill
wrote:
> Dang, I got an Excedrin® headache!
Heh. Mike said he was game.
--
This email is:[ ] actionable [ ] fyi[x] social
Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate[ ] soon [x] none
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 01:16:34AM +0800, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> TLDR: FHS is unrealistic about its promises. if we move our binaries /
> libraries to /usr and work it to make sure /usr is mounted, we will
> better serve FHS goals and also happen to fix some systemic, but
> silent bugs.
>
>
>
TLDR: FHS is unrealistic about its promises. if we move our binaries /
libraries to /usr and work it to make sure /usr is mounted, we will
better serve FHS goals and also happen to fix some systemic, but
silent bugs.
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>> > Should perl be in / or /usr?
>>
>> Now that is a good question, if only because Perl traditionally _loathes_
>> being in /bin, for its own philosophical reasons.
>>
>
>
>> Now, as a practical matter? WTF are the scripts written in Perl? O
> > Should perl be in / or /usr?
>
> Now that is a good question, if only because Perl traditionally _loathes_
> being in /bin, for its own philosophical reasons.
>
> Now, as a practical matter? WTF are the scripts written in Perl? Or in
> anything other than sh? If they're intended for emerg
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Mark David Dumlao
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Mark David Dumlao
wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> or the fact that some udev programs tend to
> be located
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 02:06:27AM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2012, 07:45:24 schrieb Pandu Poluan:
> > On Dec 26, 2012 1:05 AM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" wrote:
> > Even Linus piped up at one point, sharply reminding
> > Greg KH that even though udev was at one ti
Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2012, 07:45:24 schrieb Pandu Poluan:
> On Dec 26, 2012 1:05 AM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" wrote:
> Even Linus piped up at one point, sharply reminding
> Greg KH that even though udev was at one time Greg's 'baby', at this point
> udev serves only the wants of the few.
link
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 15:14:11 +
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > Are there any other cases, apart from emotional attachment based on
> > inertia, where a separate / and /usr are desirable? As I see it,
> > there is only the system, and it is an atomic unit.
>
> You should really read the thread befo
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>> * Finally, and what I think is the most fundamental difference between
>> systemd and almost any other init system: The service unit files in
>> systemd are *declarative*; you tell the daemon *what* to do, not *how*
>> to do it. If the ser
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:00 AM, pk wrote:
> On 2012-12-27 02:14, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> I really think that's the crux of the matter Pandou: udev/systemd
>> serves to the wants of the many. The eudev fork serves to the wants of
>
> systemd+udev serves the "large mass" (users of mainly F
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:56:52 +0700
Pandu Poluan wrote:
> In case you haven't noticed, since Windows 7 (or Vista, forget which)
> Microsoft has even went the distance of splitting between C:
> (analogous to /usr) and 'System Partition' (analogous to /). The boot
> process is actually handled by th
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
or the fact that some udev programs tend to
be located in /usr,
>>>
>>>
>>> That's either a bug with those programs, or
Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
>>> 1) initramfs. It's not that hard
>>> 2) early mount script. It's not that hard.
>>> 3) modify your udev ebuild to install to /. It's not that hard.
>>
>> If you'd read the thread (and/or related ones), you'd know he t
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>> or the fact that some udev programs tend to
>>> be located in /usr,
>>
>>
>> That's either a bug with those programs, or a need for architectural
>> improvements within udev. Both p
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>> or the fact that some udev programs tend to
>> be located in /usr,
>
>
> That's either a bug with those programs, or a need for architectural
> improvements within udev. Both plausible answers.
>
The most obvious architectural improvement bei
On 2012-12-27, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 23. Dezember 2012, 19:44:43 schrieb Nuno J. Silva:
>> On 2012-12-23, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> > On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 07:03:25PM +0200, Nuno J. Silva wrote:
>> >> On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +02
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
wrote:
>
> Am Sonntag, 23. Dezember 2012, 19:44:43 schrieb Nuno J. Silva:
> > On 2012-12-23, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 07:03:25PM +0200, Nuno J. Silva wrote:
> > >> On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > >> > On Sun,
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:43:12 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> and a device node in /dev - like /dev/sda2. And how do you get that one
> without udev?
CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y
Of course, that only helps if /usr is on a plain old disk block device.
--
Neil Bothwick
No, you *can't* call 999 now.
Am Sonntag, 23. Dezember 2012, 19:44:43 schrieb Nuno J. Silva:
> On 2012-12-23, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 07:03:25PM +0200, Nuno J. Silva wrote:
> >> On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +0200
> >> >
> >> > nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. S
Am Sonntag, 23. Dezember 2012, 19:03:25 schrieb Nuno J. Silva:
> Then I suppose you can surely explain in a nutshell why can't init
> scripts simply do that?
because some people decided, that fsck or that dynamic /dev/ populator depends
on stuff in /usr? which is the reason for this thread?
How
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>
>> 1) initramfs. It's not that hard
>> 2) early mount script. It's not that hard.
>> 3) modify your udev ebuild to install to /. It's not that hard.
>
>
> If you'd read the thread (and/or related ones), you'd know he tried to go
> the initrd
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:15 AM, Dale wrote:
> > So I guess Linus is confused to?
>
> In your head, and only in your head, you're agreeing with Linus. Linus
> was talking about a different bug entirely from the one you're talking
> about
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Kevin Chadwick
> wrote:
> >
> > Again you don't break the spec unless you have to and you don't change
> > the spec unless it is an improvement or you have no choice. Non of
> > which is the case. Just l
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:15 AM, Dale wrote:
> So I guess Linus is confused to?
In your head, and only in your head, you're agreeing with Linus. Linus
was talking about a different bug entirely from the one you're talking
about.
The bug you're talking about: you go on and on about people saying
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>
> Again you don't break the spec unless you have to and you don't change
> the spec unless it is an improvement or you have no choice. Non of
> which is the case. Just like you do not mould a mail RFC to a
> widely used technically inferior
Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> I think your reaction proves my point about angry mobs torching his
> home without understanding what's being proposed. Your fine reading
> comprehension once again failed to catch the notion that in my
> analogy, all he invented was a mechanism that makes sure it was a k
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Dale wrote:
> Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Dale wrote:
>>> Mark David Dumlao wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Dale wrote:
> Feel free to set me straight tho. As long as you don't tell me my
> system is broken
> * Finally, and what I think is the most fundamental difference between
> systemd and almost any other init system: The service unit files in
> systemd are *declarative*; you tell the daemon *what* to do, not *how*
> to do it. If the service files are shell scripts (like in
> OpenRC/SysV), everyth
Again you don't break the spec unless you have to and you don't change
the spec unless it is an improvement or you have no choice. Non of
which is the case. Just like you do not mould a mail RFC to a
widely used technically inferior hotmail implementation.
> He's like DJB on crack.
Except DJB ma
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Dale wrote:
>
> I think your analogy actually proves my point. Instead of just getting
> in the car and turning the key, they want to reinvent the engine and how
> it works. It doesn't matter that it is and has been working for decades,
>
> Thanks for proving my
Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Dale wrote:
>> Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Dale wrote:
Feel free to set me straight tho. As long as you don't tell me my
system is broken and has not been able to boot for the last 9 years
>>
On 2012-12-27 02:14, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> I really think that's the crux of the matter Pandou: udev/systemd
> serves to the wants of the many. The eudev fork serves to the wants of
systemd+udev serves the "large mass" (users of mainly Fedora and other
distros using systemd) that doesn't c
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Dale wrote:
> Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Dale wrote:
>>> Feel free to set me straight tho. As long as you don't tell me my
>>> system is broken and has not been able to boot for the last 9 years
>>> without one of those things.
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
[ snip ]
> I'm sorry if sounded like scoffing (certainly I don't remember
> scoffing anyone, at least consciously). I remember I praised Walt for
> doing the work for mdev. Do you remember that? I can dig the archives,
> but I'm pretty su
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> On Dec 26, 2012 1:05 AM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" wrote:
>
> {supersnip}
> Canek, I distinctly remember, at the very beginning of this brouhaha over
> udev requiring /usr to be mounted at boot time, you stated something along
> the lines of '
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I didn't started the thread, Wolfe did. I just answered his question
>> from my point of view.
>>
>> And, what community is being divided? Fedora,OpenSuse, and Arch us
On Dec 26, 2012 1:05 AM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" wrote:
{supersnip}
>
> So, no, I'm not trying to answer if you could "create a "/usr" service
> and make things dependent on /usr come after it's been mounted". I
> passed almost this entire thread because it's mostly people still
> hitting the same
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:01:17 -0600
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> And, what community is being divided? Fedora,OpenSuse, and Arch use
> systemd by default.
From debian and hurd to slackware which will not touch systemd ever and
ubuntu and also embedded with the kernel working on more and more
deep
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
[snip]
> I didn't started the thread, Wolfe did. I just answered his question
> from my point of view.
>
> And, what community is being divided? Fedora,OpenSuse, and Arch use
> systemd by default. Gentoo derivative Exherbo recommends it
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 02:01:13 -0600
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> To the OP of this OT sub-thread. The main difference for me is OpenRC
> removes some of the symlink mess and uncertainty compared to for
> example debians init. I very much
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:01:58 +0800
Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> Nobody's telling you _your_ system, as in the collection of programs
> you use for your productivity, is broken. What we're saying is that
> _the_ system, as in the general practice as compared to the
> specification, is broken. Those
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:56:38 -0500
Joshua Murphy wrote:
> It would still be a (notable, at that) drop
> in size if the shell script was redone to provide exactly the same set
> of features, then compared, but that size difference wouldn't have the
> same shock value as the comparison against 80+
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 07:09:49 +0800
William Kenworthy wrote:
> Not all the proposed changes are bad ... a read only /usr would be
> nice, but I object to being forced into what I regard as an unreliable
> configuration (or use unreliable, crappy software, eg pulse audio!)
> because of these change
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 02:01:13 -0600
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
To the OP of this OT sub-thread. The main difference for me is OpenRC
removes some of the symlink mess and uncertainty compared to for
example debians init. I very much like OpenRC but my fav is still
OpenBSD that tries to minimise the
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Dale wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>> One interesting small point I got out of the docs that Neil pointed me
>> toward: That since linux-2.6 we're all using an initramfs "The 2.6
>> kernel build process always creates a gzipped cpio format initramfs
>> archive and l
Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Dale wrote:
>> Feel free to set me straight tho. As long as you don't tell me my
>> system is broken and has not been able to boot for the last 9 years
>> without one of those things. ROFL
> Nobody's telling you _your_ system, as in th
Mark Knecht wrote:
> One interesting small point I got out of the docs that Neil pointed me
> toward: That since linux-2.6 we're all using an initramfs "The 2.6
> kernel build process always creates a gzipped cpio format initramfs
> archive and links it into the resulting kernel binary. By default,
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Bruce Hill
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 09:24:55PM -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>>
>> And then months later has the nerve of calling my use of the word
>> "fuck" (in which I wasn't insulting anyone) as "offensive":
>>
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Bruce Hill
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 09:24:20AM -0500, Todd Goodman wrote:
>> * Bruce Hill [121225 18:30]:
>> > >
>> > > Try reading the kernel Documentation. (e.g.,
>> > > /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/ramfs-rootfs-initramfs.txt.)
>> > >
>> > >
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 09:24:55PM -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> And then months later has the nerve of calling my use of the word
> "fuck" (in which I wasn't insulting anyone) as "offensive":
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/261318
>
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 09:24:20AM -0500, Todd Goodman wrote:
> * Bruce Hill [121225 18:30]:
> > >
> > > Try reading the kernel Documentation. (e.g.,
> > > /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/ramfs-rootfs-initramfs.txt.)
> > >
> > > initramfs is an improvement over initrd.
> > >
> > > Tod
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Dale wrote:
> Feel free to set me straight tho. As long as you don't tell me my
> system is broken and has not been able to boot for the last 9 years
> without one of those things. ROFL
Nobody's telling you _your_ system, as in the collection of programs
you us
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Dale wrote:
> Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Bruce Hill
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:05:25AM -0600, Dale wrote:
Bruce Hill wrote:
<<< SNIP >>>
> No initrd...
YET!!! ROFL
When eudev goes s
* Bruce Hill [121225 18:30]:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 11:51:43AM -0500, Todd Goodman wrote:
> > >
> > > Same question ... initrd.gz and initramfs are *not* the same thing; and
> > > there
> > > was a package called mkinitrd in Gentoo that was retired to attic some
> > > time
> > > ago, before
On 2012-12-26 12:55, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> That all makes sense, although it may well be harder to implement
> than to suggest. To be fair to the udev developers, we owe them
> nothing and they are free to take their project in whichever
> direction they like and spend their time on whatever feat
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:54:49 +1100, Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> > Also, if you actually read the linked URL, it does explain it won't
> > fail to boot. You do realize these are two different issues here,
> > right? One is people saying that udev-181 will fail to boot, other is
> > the issue described
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 17:26:12 -0600, Bruce Hill wrote:
> > Try reading the kernel Documentation. (e.g.,
> > /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/ramfs-rootfs-initramfs.txt.)
> >
> > initramfs is an improvement over initrd.
> Having read it years ago it still fails to give me a good reason fo
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Bruce Hill
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:01:14PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > When you're in charge of over 100 servers as the back-end of a
>>> > > multinational company that has a reven
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Bruce Hill
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:01:14PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>> > >
>> > > When you're in charge of over 100 servers as the back-end of a
>> > > multinational company that has a revenue in excess of 10 million USD per
>> > > day, even a tempora
On Dec 26, 2012 6:35 AM, "Bruce Hill"
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:01:14PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When you're in charge of over 100 servers as the back-end of a
> > > > multinational company that has a revenue in excess of 10 million
USD per
> > > > day, even a tempora
Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Dale wrote:
>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:00:36 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> The right tools are included, and documented, with your kernel.
>> Create a
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:01:14PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> > >
> > > When you're in charge of over 100 servers as the back-end of a
> > > multinational company that has a revenue in excess of 10 million USD per
> > > day, even a temporary outage means the CIO, COO, and CEO breathing down
> > >
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 11:51:43AM -0500, Todd Goodman wrote:
> >
> > Same question ... initrd.gz and initramfs are *not* the same thing; and
> > there
> > was a package called mkinitrd in Gentoo that was retired to attic some time
> > ago, before my exodus from Slackware to Gentoo; therefore, I
Paul Colquhoun wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:17:24 Nuno J. Silva wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Also, if you actually read the linked URL, it does explain it won't fail
>
> > to boot. You do realize these are two different issues here, right? One
>
> > is people saying that udev-181 will fail to boot, othe
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Dale wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:00:36 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>>
> The right tools are included, and documented, with your kernel.
> Create a plain text config file det
Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:00:36 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
The right tools are included, and documented, with your kernel.
Create a plain text config file detailing the contents of the
initramfs and set CON
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:17:24 Nuno J. Silva wrote:
>
> Also, if you actually read the linked URL, it does explain it won't fail
> to boot. You do realize these are two different issues here, right? One
> is people saying that udev-181 will fail to boot, other is the issue
> described on the URL lin
Nuno J. Silva wrote:
> On 2012-12-25, Dale wrote:
>
>
> root@fireball / # egrep 'usb-db|pci-db|FROM_DATABASE|/usr' /*/udev/rules.d/*
> [...]
>> $$D; printf %%03i:%%03i $$B $$D'", RUN+="/bin/sh -c '/usr/bin/python
>> /usr/bin/hp-check-plugin -m %c &'"
>> /lib/udev/rules.d/86-hpmud_plugin.rules:SUBSY
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:00:36 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> > The right tools are included, and documented, with your kernel.
>> > Create a plain text config file detailing the contents of the
>> > initramfs and set CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE to
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:00:36 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > The right tools are included, and documented, with your kernel.
> > Create a plain text config file detailing the contents of the
> > initramfs and set CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE to the path top this file.
> > That and an init script are all
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 15:42:22 -0600, Dale wrote:
> > I've been running separate /usr on LVM with ~arch udev and no
> > initramfs on a couple of systems with no problems. The news item is
> > taking the easy way out by saying "it will break" rather than "it may
> > break" - such breakage is by no me
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:23:16 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> I don't like, really don't like, the work that currently goes into
>> making my 'init thingy' work. All the Gentoo docs about creating
>> hierarchies by hand and populating them with
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:33:34 -0600, Dale wrote:
>
>> Putting /usr on LVM is not the problem. I have had /usr on LVM for a
>> good long while now. It has booted just fine. The new udev is what is
>> going to break it, whether I use LVM or not from what has been said on
>> t
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:23:16 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
> I don't like, really don't like, the work that currently goes into
> making my 'init thingy' work. All the Gentoo docs about creating
> hierarchies by hand and populating them with files and then compressing
> it. All that drives me nuts. It
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:33:34 -0600, Dale wrote:
> Putting /usr on LVM is not the problem. I have had /usr on LVM for a
> good long while now. It has booted just fine. The new udev is what is
> going to break it, whether I use LVM or not from what has been said on
> this list and elsewhere.
I'
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 07:09:49 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
>
>> I used initrd's many years ago, and separate /usr and/ until on a redhat
>> system I rebooted with an out of sequence initrd and kernel on a
>> critical server (the sort of thing that puts your employment at ri
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 07:09:49 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
> I used initrd's many years ago, and separate /usr and/ until on a redhat
> system I rebooted with an out of sequence initrd and kernel on a
> critical server (the sort of thing that puts your employment at risk
> when there are 20 odd
1 - 100 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
