From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-47746-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1R5YqB-0007RM-Pv
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:04:35 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E016621C3D2;
	Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:04:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from arsenic.logifi.fr (arsenic.logifi.fr [217.108.178.219])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0994021C122
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:03:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nicolas-desktop (unknown [192.168.8.78])
	by arsenic.logifi.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B87EA20031;
	Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:20:13 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:03:00 +0200
From: Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebrecht@piing.fr>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebrecht@piing.fr>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: udev and /usr
Message-ID: <20110919080300.GA2401@nicolas-desktop>
References: <1740055.XA9oyAS8HQ@eve>
 <1884169.5d71snpPpZ@eve>
 <robbat2-20110917T180602-009711973Z@orbis-terrarum.net>
 <3215539.x3CMH0d0eb@eve>
 <pan.2011.09.18.18.14.28@cox.net>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <pan.2011.09.18.18.14.28@cox.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Archives-Salt: 
X-Archives-Hash: 16ceda1bd5da6889bee4b7578890f71b

The 18/09/11, Duncan wrote:

> > I don't see any added benefit from using DBUS on my servers.

Insterstingly, Duncan just answered your question...

> Interesting question.  I hadn't seen the suggestion until this thread, 
> either, and it bothered me too.

>From here:

> With a moment's thought, I decided I could probably return to a semi-
> static dev setup reasonably easily.  I'd potentially turn on the early-dev 
> option in the kernel that I still have off, ATM, which presumably would 
> mount a tmpfs on dev and populate it with the earliest devices.  After 
> that, if necessary, I'd copy the existing udev-created nodes out to a 
> persistent state dir, and copy them back in with a little init-time 
> script of my own.  As long as the device ordering remains stable, this 
> could include by-label, etc, symlinks, or I could simply kill the by-
> label, by-uid stuff in fstab, and go back to traditional devices there, 
> too.
> 
> Either that, or simply go back to a static /dev entirely.
> 
> People with dynamic ordered devices may have to devise their own scripts, 
> tho, or perhaps more likely, fork off udev from the pre-union state.

...to here.

> But it's also possible that's far enough in the future that we can't 
> really answer the question now, since technology will have changed enough 
> to make an answer now look senseless, then.  Consider trying to answer 
> the question in terms of the kernel devfs back before udev.  The tech 
> simply changed and those answers wouldn't really work, today.

Upstream changes the init process is done. So, you're free to either:

 stick to upstream (with best long term support);

or

 fork off upstream (requires knowledges, manpower and time);

or

 go back to 1960 with a full/partial static /dev (asking to manually
 maintain the crap).

See the benenfit, now?

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht