On Jan 25, 2012, at 9:22 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> That's just a *tiny* bit excessive I think.
>
> Now maybe this can all be disabled, but it seems that for something as
> core to the system as init, it'd be better to disable esoteric bits of
> it by default, not enable them by default.
I thi
On Jan 25, 2012, at 9:15 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> And give up LVM? udev is the only thing that creates /dev//
> symlinks now; vgcreate does not touch /dev. (The LVM2 package installs
> a few udev rules to create the links for you. The underlying devmapper
> node remains at /dev/dm-X, but not
On Jan 25, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'm sure that systemd solves a problem for 1% of users, but for 99%,
> it's not needed. I recently installed Fedora 16 on a virtual system
> with exactly one partition. The listing below is what I got for a
> simple 'mount' command.
Your
On Jan 24, 2012, at 7:49 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> Why? Can't you mount the devtmpfs both with and without the
>> initramfs?
>
> Not if it's already mounted, unless you want to undo the modifications
> that udev has made (by putting a new mount on top), or make changes to
> the bootscripts (w
On Jan 24, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> If it wasn't entirely clear from other posts, Grub can also use those
> same UUIDs for its 'linux', 'linuxrd' and 'root' options. I'm not sure
> off the top of my head if it supports labels. I've always used the UUIDs
> because every parti
On Jan 23, 2012, at 7:56 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Don't you still need udevd if you want to find the rootfs based on
> config stored in /etc/fstab, and you want to support all the (somewhat
> exotic) options for that, like /dev/disk/by-{id,uuid,label,path}?
You can't find the rootfs based on
On Jan 23, 2012, at 7:56 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> UGH. FWIW I really don't like this "feature".
>
> It causes the booted-with-initramfs case to require different handling
> from the booted-without-initramfs case, once the bootscripts are
> running, and therefore requires changes to the bootsc
On Jan 22, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The times I have had problems have been when grub can't load the kernel
> and if I can load the kernel I can always edit the command line in grub
> to use init=/bin/bash.
Only if the kernel can mount the root file system as-is. Given an initra
On Jan 22, 2012, at 7:33 PM, Steve Crosby wrote:
> 3. Populate /dev using busybox cutdown version of udev (mdev)
Is there a benefit to mdev over just using tmpdevfs?
I say that as a current user of mdev; I haven't yet tried a tmpdevfs initramfs
device system. But if I'm understanding it corre
On Jan 18, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> You just need to ensure vgchange can find the PV(s) when you run it at boot
> time; it doesn't use the info in the partition table to do that. :-)
In fact it doesn't need partitions at all -- you can just use the raw device.
> RAID: fdisk
On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Steve Crosby wrote:
> Not *required* but systemd will issue a warning on boot if /etc/mtab
> is not a symlink to /proc/mounts
I'm pretty sure this is actually required if you use systemd's internal mount
facilities -- it does not manage mtab and the file will be em
On Jan 16, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Interesting. I wonder if this is a side effect my using an initramfs. I
> assume you have a monolithic kernel and you are using root= on the grub boot
> line?
It is. When the system boots always mounts the "rootfs" device. If you use
ini
On Jan 14, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> On the other hand, setting up a initramfs may require a lot more. There
> have been mentions of RAID, encrypted filesystems, LVM, and networked
> FS. We could leave something out, but some have said they want
> something that will work anywhe
On Jan 14, 2012, at 3:58 PM, William Tracy wrote:
> My 2 cents, FWIW: Cover initramfs in BLFS, and include an explicit reference
> to that section early in the LFS chapter on the kernel.
I think that makes sense. I'd personally go for full integration, but so long
as users are made aware of t
On Jan 14, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> We (both LFS and BLFS) have many different sorts of users. I'd
> assumed that people building a new LFS system (apart from those
> building for the first time) generally knew what they wanted to
> build, although they will probably try some newer
On Jan 14, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> Surely it depends who you take your recommendations from ?
I was taking that recommendation from the kernel documentation and code.
Initramfs *is* the default boot method in all kernels since 2.6.pretty_early,
as a matter of code. And the docum
On Jan 14, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> A compromise solution would be to still do a write-up about the various
> options in the LFS book. Explain what it's all about, the pros and cons
> but if it's decided to be out of LFS' scope then refer to the
> appropriate sections elsewhe
On Jan 14, 2012, at 5:14 AM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> I think that initramfs/LVM sounds very interesting but I don't think it
> should go in LFS (at least, not straight away). Perhaps a section of
> BLFS could be made describing what is needed?
You could probably wedge it into BLFS. You may need
On Jan 14, 2012, at 12:27 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> You still need an initramfs to get the rootfs mounted;
> grub2 will not do that for you. (The kernel won't let it.) And the
> kernel doesn't handle rootfs-on-LVM on its own.
You're right of course. I didn't even think that far through it. W
On Jan 14, 2012, at 12:27 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> That text-format description is *much* easier for me to debug when I'm
> seeing issues with it, than even a shell script that builds a directory
> tree and runs cpio against it. (And certainly easier to debug than a
> binary that builds a dire
On Jan 14, 2012, at 12:27 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> It'll still need to be rebuilt with each kernel, though? Perhaps not if
> you don't include any modules in the image, *and* you build all the
> stuff into the kernel that's required for the rootfs. Hmm. That feels
> like a very specific kern
On Jan 14, 2012, at 12:27 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> grub doesn't care about the rootfs, it only looks for the kernel image
> and (if configured) an initramfs file. :-)
GRUB also cares about all its module files, which are now much to big to stash
in 512 bytes. You don't need them for all con
On Jan 13, 2012, at 10:43 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> For most LFS uses, you're building the entire system for one machine and in
> that case, an initramfs or early boot options like it aren't really that
> crucial, because you're likely to build just the drivers you need into the
> kernel it
On Jan 13, 2012, at 12:32 PM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
> I still like the idea, that it "adds" to lfs, as opposed to being
> "required" though. (And by that, I mean leave assumptions out of the
> bootscripts that this was booted on a initramfs/initrd)
I think that's a good design in general, even
On Jan 13, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
>> To what end? I don't mean to be argumentative, but I really don't see why
>> people see a non-initramfs boot as an important or useful goal. What
>> features/benefits does it provide, other than you don't have to run cpio one
>> time when
On Jan 13, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Kevin Lyda wrote:
> I assume that if you're using LFS to build an embedded system (I did
> that a long time ago), you want to reduce boot times.
To me an embedded system seems like the perfect use of an initramfs -- boot
directly from a ram-loaded image and never
On Jan 13, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
> If we do support it, I would also like an option for initramless setups as
> well.
To what end? I don't mean to be argumentative, but I really don't see why
people see a non-initramfs boot as an important or useful goal. What
features/ben
On Jan 13, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> I like the idea behind systemd, inasmuch as they are trying to speed
> booting up by using dependencies to allow scripts to run in parallel
> rather than Sysvinit's serial boot ordering.
Parallelization and the related speed is one of the talk
On Jan 12, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
> initrd/initramfs always felt more useful for systems that need to
> setup an environment before mounting root. Fun to learn, but not
> something I would want for my own system. I know we were saying that
> udev is expecting the environment s
On Sep 5, 2011, at 2:13 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> I'm not really sure what to do about actual IPv6 entries as your prefix
> will likely change when your router is rebooted unless ISPs start
> handing out static /64s (the last 64 bits are stable as they are
> assembled from the MAC address with FFF
On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:05 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
>> I haven't ever found a use for a DHCPv6 client,
>
> Dynamic DNS: having the DHCP server update the DNS server
I can see that. I moved to mdns for such things well before I added IPv6 to my
ne
On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
> speaking of, I never dug into ipv6 yet, wonder what it's going to require.
Just FYI on IPv6:
For static assignments `ip` usage is identical to IPv4, just with a different
address format:
ip addr add dev eth0 1:1:1:1:2:2:2:2/64
On May 16, 2011, at 12:49 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> I also *think* the only way the cached config might not match the
> running config is if root mucked with the running config manually.
Or when /run is not writable at the time the network scripts execute. Or if the
cached config were lost fo
On May 15, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out why it'd be necessary to do this. We already
> have the previous configuration of every interface stuffed away in /run,
> and we use that when deciding which service scripts to call when
> bringing down networking. Do
On May 15, 2011, at 2:25 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> might actually be easier to provide a default IFCONFIG values
> in each service script, and walk /lib/network-services.
This make sense to me -- then it's easy to extend the same approach for
arbitrary service types -- say pppoe -- which might wa
On May 14, 2011, at 11:36 PM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> I'll need to setup both DHCP clients to test functionality for this,
> which is why I didn't just do it tonight. The problem I want to avoid is
> if we do a flush, but the client daemon is still running, come
> expiration, the client daemon might
On May 10, 2011, at 7:25 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> * The three items above are the best I think we can do with it and
> should cover > 99% of all cases, the known exceptions being starting the
> dhcp client or ppp client manually, and possibly manual configuration of
> wireless interfaces (I'v
On May 8, 2011, at 7:46 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> I do think putting the service scripts under a subdirectory /lib is
> good, but maybe /lib/network-services or something (to be more explicit)
> would be better than plain "services".
As long as the scripts are 100% parameterized so that any "no
On May 5, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Erik Blomqvist wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I hope this is the right mailing list for this question. If nothing else you
> seem to be the right people to ask.
>
> Considering that dash and mawk are smaller and faster than bash and gawk I
> was a bit surprised to find that LFS
On Feb 19, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Being a speaker of "British English" rather than "US English" I would
> actually say "maths libraries" rather than "math libraries". I've never
> quite understood why Americans drop the 's'. The word being contracted is
> 'mathematics' (plur
On Oct 29, 2009, at 11:37 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Again, this is all related to mounting the rootfs. GRUB2 does
simplify
a lot of setups that still require an initramfs, so that they don't
need
a separate (non-LVM, sometimes even non-RAID) /boot partition.
I saw that and thought it was
On Oct 27, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Actually, you don't need it for that, either. Mostly because the
format
of the cpio archive that the kernel expands is rather simple, and
because the kernel includes code to build this already.
The kernel make system includes the ability
On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:16 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
cpio, no. Nothing uses it except rpm (and see above about that one).
I've added cpio to my standard install, for use in the construction
and editing of initramfs images. Other than that I agree, it's mostly
for RPM users.
Zach
On Dec 6, 2008, at 12:03 AM, Jim Gifford wrote:
David Miller constantly gets on his soapbox about this
on the Sparc Realm of linux.
I don't disagree per se -- I've given up on pure64 for desktop builds
for the moment -- but to be fair x86 has a lot more to gain running
standard apps in 6
On Dec 5, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
Last time this was discussed, the general view seemed to be that
pure64 was a step far enough. Care to remind me what the advantages
of multilib builds are ? I'm looking at the "whole system" here,
most of which is in BLFS (or, for existing multil
On Nov 13, 2008, at 12:44 AM, TheOldFellow wrote:
Following this logic, we should document:
#define VERSION "2.8-20080929-LFS-svn20081101-built-by-John-Doe"
since we can't control how it was really built. It's for this reason,
lack of control of the build options, that we MUST not call LFS a
On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:41 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
To this day, using my most modern systems which include Udev/D-Bus/Hal
and all other recent additions, after creating a new partition, I have
to reboot to see it in order to create a filesystem. Just FYI.
When I write in fdisk I always get:
On Jun 22, 2008, at 10:05 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
The problem is that iproute2 wraps its traffic counters at 4GB
(i.e., uses
32-bit counters), while the old "ifconfig" command from net-tools
doesn't.
Unwrapped (64-bit) counters are, obviously, available from /proc/net/
dev. So,
is
On May 30, 2008, at 6:02 AM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Zachary Kotlarek wrote these words on 05/29/08 20:24 CST:
http://zinux.cynicbytrade.com/svn/devel/dhcp/iproute2.diff
I'm not sure this patch qualifies as an LFS patch. Patches in LFS
are used to fix something that is brok
On May 29, 2008, at 8:24 PM, Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
Now with a trailing newline, so the link is reasonable:
http://zinux.cynicbytrade.com/svn/devel/dhcp/iproute2.diff
Zach
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
On May 26, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 8:39 AM, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
DHCP-4.0.0 is out too and the iproute2 patch will have to be
updated (or reintroduce net-tools).
Someone should really try to upstream the iproute2 patch. Every distro
u
On May 22, 2008, at 12:57 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
In the situation with a remote system, I don't think dhcp is ever an
option.
You need to know what the IP address is to log in and you wouldn't
know that for
sure before a reboot. Catch 22.
You people and your randomly-assigned IP addresse
On May 9, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
I haven't piped in on this at all, but I'd just like to say that I
really, really want to be pro-grub2. I periodically peruse the
grub-devel archives hoping to see that a 2.0 release is imminent. I
find it ridiculous that there's no currently sup
On Mar 19, 2008, at 1:52 PM, J. Greenlees wrote:
With the LSB:
Why would a BASE standrd not stop at the absolute minimum needed for a
functioning system? The addition of package management [ for example ]
to the LSB has made in no longer a BASE standard. If extras are
going to
be included, th
On Jun 8, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 6/8/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree with Andy here. Regardless of the reason for alias/label, if
it's used in iproute2, we should expose the functionality. This page I
found on linux-ip.net seems to promote using labels
On Jun 6, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
I suspect the alias option exists in ip for compatibility with
ifconfig,
and no other reason. But I don't know that for sure.
I believe that's correct. In the past the kernel supported aliases
with independent statistics and the like, but
On Aug 20, 2006, at 1:10 PM, Dennis J Perkins wrote:
So I think the project needs a challenge. Trouble is I can't
think what
it is!
Yep, and that's why I can both understand Randy's and the community's
concerns about the lack of activity, but then wonder what activity
it is
they'd l
On Nov 1, 2005, at 6:06 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
But that's not the only way of doing an initramfs. You can also
create
a control file that refers to the files on your system, in their
current
directories, and when you "make" the kernel, it'll pull the files from
wherever they currently ar
On Oct 31, 2005, at 8:27 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Well, initramfs, not initrd. They are different:
1) I believe an initramfs is mounted earlier than an initrd would be
2) an initramfs would do more than just load required modules
3) there is no FS on the initramfs image (it's just a cpio-form
On Oct 31, 2005, at 5:59 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
What I'm wondering is, for anyone that doesn't think an initramfs
is good, why do you think that?
For all the reasons you listed below -- with an initrd I'd need to
maintain a whole set of binaries and libraries in a file systems that
doe
On Sep 5, 2005, at 7:33 AM, Archaic wrote:
In the good ol' days, one could merely have an ifconfig eth0:{1,2,3}
etc. to alias as many addresses as one desired. Then we switched to
iproute2 and that broke. According to "man ip" we need a way to add a
LABEL=something to the ifconfig files so we c
On Aug 22, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Jason Gurtz wrote:
Certainly raw sockets would be a huge risk, but I don't see how
echo_reply
at a 1 per second rate or something is a problem.
Except you'd have to add a kernel interface just to send ICMP echo
requests, along with whatever options you want to
On Aug 7, 2005, at 8:50 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
In the Shadow instructions, a little note at the beginning of the
package instructions saying that if you would like the system
configured to support strong passwords, install CrackLib and add
--with-libcrack to the configure script.
What say t
On Aug 4, 2005, at 6:18 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Are there any disadvantages to including it in the LFS book?
There's at least one -- it's extra junk that gets in the way if you
use any other library that provide password complexity checking.
After fighting to make
On Jul 25, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, GN wrote:
On Monday 25 July 2005 12:36, Matthew Burgess wrote:
A number of people have emailed me privately, and its also come up
on the list recently, so here's my thoughts on what could/should be
going on in LFS land. Ye
On Jul 2, 2005, at 7:25 AM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
I've come across at least one deal where you can get a dedicated
server (with an AMD chip!) for $60 US/month. This one has 1000 GB
Data Transfer per month.
So, I know there's competitive offers like this out there.
On Apr 26, 2005, at 12:51 PM, Mark A. Nicolosi wrote:
Grub uses its own naming structure for drives and partitions in the
form
of (hdn,m), where n is the hard drive number and m is the partition
number, both starting from zero. For example, partition hda1 is (hd0,0)
to Grub and hdb3 is (hd1,2). In
67 matches
Mail list logo
