On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 12:33 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
I think that the idea of doing away with /usr and just installing
everything into / is interesting as it would simplify the structure of
the directories. I also think that making the change would be like
poking yourself in the eye with a
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 13:41 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
On 04/17/2011 01:31 PM, DJ Lucas wrote:
Anyway, udev starts 4th in the startup scripts, it runs across a uevent
that uses a rule found in /usr, and it fails to create the device node.
Errit creates the device node, but fails to run
On Sunday 17 April 2011 01:26:59 DJ Lucas wrote:
Ahh...lightbulb. This is why we currently have the udev-retry in our
bootscripts.
This is probably getting outside of the 'LFS Support' realm.
Mayhap the next version of LFS will not need 'udev-retry' because either udev
works, or the system
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 00:26 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
Ahh...lightbulb. This is why we currently have the udev-retry in our
bootscripts. Are the ids files accessed directly by external programs or
by the utility libraries/programs? Provide a common library to access
the files (if not done
On 04/17/2011 03:34 AM, Simon Geard wrote:
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 00:26 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
Ahh...lightbulb. This is why we currently have the udev-retry in our
bootscripts. Are the ids files accessed directly by external programs or
by the utility libraries/programs? Provide a common
On 04/17/2011 01:31 PM, DJ Lucas wrote:
Anyway, udev starts 4th in the startup scripts, it runs across a uevent
that uses a rule found in /usr, and it fails to create the device node.
Errit creates the device node, but fails to run whatever program in
/usr that is required to make it
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 10:08 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
It seems to me that the reason for an NFS-mounted /usr is to be able to
update all systems at once. At one time, it was to conserve disk space
too, but the cost of disk is so cheap now, it has become a non-factor.
Somewhat redundant for
On 04/13/2011 09:04 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
There is an incompatibility with using udev and /usr being a
separate file system, which users of LFS need to be aware of.
It is presently not possible, in general, to use udev and have
/usr be a separately mounted file system. This is something to
On 04/14/2011 02:55 AM, Simon Geard wrote:
Yes, there's been a bit of discussion of this among the distributions of
late. Here's a couple of the links I've read on the subject...
http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
DJ Lucas wrote:
On 04/14/2011 02:55 AM, Simon Geard wrote:
Yes, there's been a bit of discussion of this among the distributions of
late. Here's a couple of the links I've read on the subject...
http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 13:29 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
On 04/13/2011 09:04 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
There is an incompatibility with using udev and /usr being a
separate file system, which users of LFS need to be aware of.
It is presently not possible, in general, to use udev and have
/usr be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've kept out of this for as long as I could, but I think it's time
to put my two cents in...
On 2011-04-17, at 01:55, Simon Geard wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 13:29 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
On 04/13/2011 09:04 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
There is an
On Saturday 16 April 2011 21:55:30 Simon Geard wrote:
My understanding is that the problem isn't with the location of
libraries - it's with the location of data under /usr/share. Stuff like
the pci.ids and usb.ids files, which are apparently required for some of
the udev rules. Those files
On 04/16/2011 05:04 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
On 04/14/2011 02:55 AM, Simon Geard wrote:
Yes, there's been a bit of discussion of this among the distributions of
late. Here's a couple of the links I've read on the subject...
On 04/16/2011 08:55 PM, Simon Geard wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 13:29 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
On 04/13/2011 09:04 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
There is an incompatibility with using udev and /usr being a
separate file system, which users of LFS need to be aware of.
It is presently not possible, in
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 09:27 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Simon Geard wrote:
[...]
While not universal, there seems to be a growing feeling that having a
separate /usr partition serves no useful purpose these days. The third
of those links gives a pretty good summary of that viewpoint.
Simon Geard wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 09:27 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Simon Geard wrote:
[...]
While not universal, there seems to be a growing feeling that having a
separate /usr partition serves no useful purpose these days. The third
of those links gives a pretty good summary of
On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 21:04 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
There is an incompatibility with using udev and /usr being a
separate file system, which users of LFS need to be aware of.
It is presently not possible, in general, to use udev and have
/usr be a separately mounted file system. This is
Simon Geard wrote:
[...]
While not universal, there seems to be a growing feeling that having a
separate /usr partition serves no useful purpose these days. The third
of those links gives a pretty good summary of that viewpoint.
Well, I also have read this argument, and it cuts no water
with
There is an incompatibility with using udev and /usr being a
separate file system, which users of LFS need to be aware of.
It is presently not possible, in general, to use udev and have
/usr be a separately mounted file system. This is something to
consider when planning the layout of the disc
20 matches
Mail list logo
