[gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 358 bytes --]

All,

In the meeting today (24-Sep-2013), the council agreed that all
preparations for dropping support for Linux systems with /usr on a
separate file system that do not use an initramfs are complete.

I am submitting this news item for review, and I plan to commit it on
2013-09-27 if there are no major issues with it.

On behalf of the council,

William


[-- Attachment #1.2: 2013-09-27-initramfs-required.en.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 817 bytes --]

Title: Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs
Author: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2013-09-27
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0

In the meeting on 24-Sep-2013, the Gentoo Council agreed that all
preparations for dropping support for Linux systems with /usr on a
separate file system that do not use an initramfs are complete.

Therefore, starting on 01-Nov-2013, we will consider this configuration
to be unsupported.

This means if you have a separate /usr configuration, it is important
to convert to using an initramfs. If you do not convert and you upgrade
packages on or after 01-Nov-2013, you will, at some point, find that
your system is unbootable.

For more information on creating an initramfs, see the following URL:

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Initramfs/HOWTO

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2522 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:43:22 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Title: Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs
> Author: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Posted: 2013-09-27
> Revision: 1
> News-Item-Format: 1.0
> 
> In the meeting on 24-Sep-2013, the Gentoo Council agreed that all
> preparations for dropping support for Linux systems with /usr on a
> separate file system that do not use an initramfs are complete.

This sentence feels long and yields multiple questions for the user:

1) Where can I read more about this meeting? What is the Gentoo Council?
2) What are these preparations? Does the user need to know about them?
3) Why is support being dropped? Why was it a problem?

Since some of these are not really important to start the news with; I
would suggest to start the mail about the drop in support and give some
reference to another article/mail describing the problem after that.

So, something along the lines of:

    Linux systems with /usr on a separate file system that do not use
    an initramfs will become unsupported, starting on 01-Nov-2013.

Then go on like:

    This decision has been taken because of [problem]; you can read
    more about that in [article/mail references]."

We could probably leave out the meeting and preparations; remember that
the mail is focused towards the user, so should focus on why the
situation changes and how the user can accommodate with that. If it is
a necessity to add it, please consider doing it at the end.

> Therefore, starting on 01-Nov-2013, we will consider this
> configuration to be unsupported.

The date has been embedded in my above rewording, avoiding repetition.

> This means if you have a separate /usr configuration, it is important
> to convert to using an initramfs. If you do not convert and you
> upgrade packages on or after 01-Nov-2013, you will, at some point,
> find that your system is unbootable.
>
> For more information on creating an initramfs, see the following URL:
> 
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Initramfs/HOWTO

Sounds good; since this is the most important to the user, we might
want to restructure this to be mentioned earlier in the news message.
Possibly between the two example sentences I gave.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> So, something along the lines of:
>
>     Linux systems with /usr on a separate file system that do not use
>     an initramfs will become unsupported, starting on 01-Nov-2013.
>

++

> Then go on like:
>
>     This decision has been taken because of [problem]; you can read
>     more about that in [article/mail references]."

--

I wouldn't go too much into the why.  I'd focus on the what and in
particular on what users need to do about it.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 911 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:57:22 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > Then go on like:
> >
> >     This decision has been taken because of [problem]; you can read
> >     more about that in [article/mail references]."
> 
> --
> 
> I wouldn't go too much into the why.  I'd focus on the what and in
> particular on what users need to do about it.

++

True, users can always get more information through support channels.

Makes me wonder if the "Why?" question should be left unanswered; I'm
also not quite sure if we can produce a short answer, can the actual
problem be summarized in one short clear sentence at all?

(This does not mean that I want to see a long answer)

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 436 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 02:55:49AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Makes me wonder if the "Why?" question should be left unanswered; I'm
> also not quite sure if we can produce a short answer, can the actual
> problem be summarized in one short clear sentence at all?

I will try, but not in this thread. I want this thread to stay focused
on the news item.

Here is the updated newsitem based on feedback I have received so far.

William


[-- Attachment #1.2: 2013-09-27-initramfs-required.en.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 652 bytes --]

Title: Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs
Author: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2013-09-27
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0

Linux systems which have / and /usr on separate file systems but do not
use an initramfs will not be supported starting on 01-Nov-2013.

If you have / and /usr on separate file systems and you are not
currently using an initramfs, you must set one up before this date.
Otherwise, at some point on or after this date, upgrading packages
will make your system unbootable.

For more information on setting up an initramfs, see this URL:

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Initramfs/HOWTO

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 662 bytes --]

William Hubbs schrieb:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 02:55:49AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> Makes me wonder if the "Why?" question should be left unanswered; I'm
>> also not quite sure if we can produce a short answer, can the actual
>> problem be summarized in one short clear sentence at all?
> 
> I will try, but not in this thread. I want this thread to stay focused
> on the news item.
> 
> Here is the updated newsitem based on feedback I have received so far.
> 
> William
> 

What about busybox[sep-usr]? Is that still supported or is everyone with
separate /usr forced to use an initramfs?

-- 

Thomas Sachau
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 379 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Samuli Suominen]

On 25/09/13 11:06, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> William Hubbs schrieb:
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 02:55:49AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> Makes me wonder if the "Why?" question should be left unanswered; I'm
>>> also not quite sure if we can produce a short answer, can the actual
>>> problem be summarized in one short clear sentence at all?
>>
>> I will try, but not in this thread. I want this thread to stay focused
>> on the news item.
>>
>> Here is the updated newsitem based on feedback I have received so far.
>>
>> William
>>
>
> What about busybox[sep-usr]? Is that still supported or is everyone with
> separate /usr forced to use an initramfs?

I don't see how busybox[sep-usr] would fix the problem of 
net-wireless/bluez installing to /usr and bluetooth keyboards, or 
sys-apps/kbd installing keymaps to /usr, and so forth
Should just declare it unsupported -- that's doesn't stop people from 
still using separate /usr.
I think the point with declaring it unsupported is to let people know 
there will be issues, and they have to deal with them.

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1302 bytes --]

Dnia 2013-09-25, o godz. 10:06:43
Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> William Hubbs schrieb:
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 02:55:49AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >> Makes me wonder if the "Why?" question should be left unanswered; I'm
> >> also not quite sure if we can produce a short answer, can the actual
> >> problem be summarized in one short clear sentence at all?
> > 
> > I will try, but not in this thread. I want this thread to stay focused
> > on the news item.
> > 
> > Here is the updated newsitem based on feedback I have received so far.
> > 
> > William
> > 
> 
> What about busybox[sep-usr]? Is that still supported or is everyone with
> separate /usr forced to use an initramfs?

I'd say it's supported as long as it gives a compatible end result.
I suspect that the number of cases supported by that is less than those
supported by a complete initramfs.

However, I'd say the support is mostly the maintainer's discretion.
As long as busybox maintainers want to support that, it should work.
But don't expect Gentoo developers to check whether that work or
encourage users to use that.

I think we used to call that 'early boot mechanism' in the past, but I
guess just 'initramfs' is easier for users.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> What about busybox[sep-usr]? Is that still supported or is everyone with
>> separate /usr forced to use an initramfs?
>
> I'd say it's supported as long as it gives a compatible end result.
> I suspect that the number of cases supported by that is less than those
> supported by a complete initramfs.
>
> However, I'd say the support is mostly the maintainer's discretion.
> As long as busybox maintainers want to support that, it should work.
> But don't expect Gentoo developers to check whether that work or
> encourage users to use that.
>
> I think we used to call that 'early boot mechanism' in the past, but I
> guess just 'initramfs' is easier for users.

If Gentoo actually offered some kind of formal support I'd be more
concerned about exactly what is and isn't supported, but for the most
part what is and isn't supported is a gray area that varies by
developer, with perhaps some hard boundaries at the extremes.

We had the conversation of whether mixing keywords was "supported" and
ended up basically where we seem to be with early boot mechanisms.

If somebody wanted to run with a separate /usr I would recommend they
use an initramfs.  That doesn't mean that there aren't other ways of
solving the problem.  However, an initramfs is what would end up in
the handbook/etc as it is probably the most straightforward solution.

I guess the questions is whether we really need to advertise the
alternatives.  95% of users are probably going to use an initramfs
anyway.  If some prefer an alternative solution they're likely to
already be reading -dev and so on and probably are already using
busybox.

If the maintainers of the busybox-based solution want to plug their
option (and deal with the questions/issues when they arise) I have no
objection as long as it doesn't add much to the news item.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

William Hubbs schrieb:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 02:55:49AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> Makes me wonder if the "Why?" question should be left unanswered;
>> I'm also not quite sure if we can produce a short answer, can the
>> actual problem be summarized in one short clear sentence at all?
> 
> I will try, but not in this thread. I want this thread to stay 
> focused on the news item.

William, I think what Tom was mentioning here is that he thinks a
one-sentence answering the "Why" would be a good idea to have in the
news item, so users that don't have a clue on all of these sep-/usr
issues will get an idea of why the change is being made.


On 25/09/13 04:06 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> 
> What about busybox[sep-usr]? Is that still supported or is
> everyone with separate /usr forced to use an initramfs?
> 

My interpretation of the various Council votes on the matter is that
it's not "officially" supported, but the busybox'ers I expect will
continue to provide this avenue.

Even though the "official"ness of support is being dropped, this
doesn't mean it won't work for various configurations; as far as I've
been able to tell, this all just means gentoo dev's are now allowed to
treat bugs related to failures from a /usr not being mounted at bootup
as RESO/INVALID.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlJC7pwACgkQ2ugaI38ACPC76AD9EHQXzywD4CPWOh9Pjv4nZQ6V
LViekn/0Jv3LdD9RPzgA/0OF4oZtBwxvTPPTsjy65v140/TtVam7dKtlKHTZ285k
=ZxJe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> William, I think what Tom was mentioning here is that he thinks a
> one-sentence answering the "Why" would be a good idea to have in the
> news item, so users that don't have a clue on all of these sep-/usr
> issues will get an idea of why the change is being made.

How about something like:
Due to many upstream changes properly supporting a separate /usr
without an initramfs has become increasingly difficult - despite all
our efforts it already breaks in some exotic configurations, and this
is a trend likely to grow worse.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 25/09/13 10:51 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> William, I think what Tom was mentioning here is that he thinks
>> a one-sentence answering the "Why" would be a good idea to have
>> in the news item, so users that don't have a clue on all of these
>> sep-/usr issues will get an idea of why the change is being
>> made.
> 
> How about something like: Due to many upstream changes properly
> supporting a separate /usr without an initramfs has become
> increasingly difficult - despite all our efforts it already breaks
> in some exotic configurations, and this is a trend likely to grow
> worse.
> 
> Rich
> 

How about changing "[properly] supporting a separate /usr without an
initramfs" to "supporting a system with /usr missing at boot time"  ?
 More generic, indicates the actual problem better.  Otherwise sounds
great to me.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlJC+7QACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAXxgEAhbkqYQjs5G1kdklcVSYVoCCd
ZXYCAhBVryEqFycMPfABAMCKsbLx0uD0ZGxWbX/PXfpdVSogvd54fOemDWVV6leq
=XOnB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Alan McKinnon]

On 25/09/2013 16:51, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> William, I think what Tom was mentioning here is that he thinks a
>> one-sentence answering the "Why" would be a good idea to have in the
>> news item, so users that don't have a clue on all of these sep-/usr
>> issues will get an idea of why the change is being made.
> 
> How about something like:
> Due to many upstream changes properly supporting a separate /usr
> without an initramfs has become increasingly difficult - despite all
> our efforts it already breaks in some exotic configurations, and this
> is a trend likely to grow worse.

if you add

"For more info, see <insert detailed wiki doc URL here>"

after that paragraph, most users can have their questions answered in
the simplest way possible.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Sven Eden]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2553 bytes --]

Am Mittwoch, 25. September 2013, 11:05:24 schrieb Ian Stakenvicius:
> On 25/09/13 10:51 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org>
> > 
> > wrote:
> >> William, I think what Tom was mentioning here is that he thinks
> >> a one-sentence answering the "Why" would be a good idea to have
> >> in the news item, so users that don't have a clue on all of these
> >> sep-/usr issues will get an idea of why the change is being
> >> made.
> > 
> > How about something like: Due to many upstream changes properly
> > supporting a separate /usr without an initramfs has become
> > increasingly difficult - despite all our efforts it already breaks
> > in some exotic configurations, and this is a trend likely to grow
> > worse.
> > 
> > Rich
> 
> How about changing "[properly] supporting a separate /usr without an
> initramfs" to "supporting a system with /usr missing at boot time"  ?
>  More generic, indicates the actual problem better.  Otherwise sounds
> great to me.

Maybe some links to articles that explain *why* the so called "UsrMerge" was 
needed/done would be a good idea. I have a feeling that many people (still) 
think a separate /usr partition would be something they needed badly, and that 
it is all Lennards fault (and his wrecked systemd project) that a separate 
/usr /suddenly/ needs an initrd. In fact, only really rare cornercases (*) 
actually *need* a separate /usr partition, and none can't live with an initrd.

The most prominent sites would be, I believe,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove/ and
http://http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/ 
with references to
http://http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/ ?

Don't understand me wrong, please. I have always worked with a separate /usr 
partition, and was extremely pissed off when, all of a sudden, I was told that 
I'd need an initrd to support it further.
My thoughts where a bit like: "/But why? I need, that! It is highly useful, 
because .... because  ... erm.. (no idea...) ... Because I've *always* used it 
that way!/"
In the end I found absolutely no reason for _not_ merging /usr into / and did 
it. Result: No initrd and one partition less to take care of. I have never had 
any disadvantage by that merge over a year ago on all my machines. And then I 
took a closer look at all servers (debian, ranging from Sarge over Lenny to 
Squeeze) at my workplace, and none ever even had a separate /usr.

Cheers

Sven

(*): Like /usr over NFS

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 25/09/13 11:27 AM, Sven Eden wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 25. September 2013, 11:05:24 schrieb Ian
> Stakenvicius:
>> On 25/09/13 10:51 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius
>>> <axs@gentoo.org>
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> William, I think what Tom was mentioning here is that he
>>>> thinks a one-sentence answering the "Why" would be a good
>>>> idea to have in the news item, so users that don't have a
>>>> clue on all of these sep-/usr issues will get an idea of why
>>>> the change is being made.
>>> 
>>> How about something like: Due to many upstream changes
>>> properly supporting a separate /usr without an initramfs has
>>> become increasingly difficult - despite all our efforts it
>>> already breaks in some exotic configurations, and this is a
>>> trend likely to grow worse.
>>> 
>>> Rich
>> 
>> How about changing "[properly] supporting a separate /usr without
>> an initramfs" to "supporting a system with /usr missing at boot
>> time"  ? More generic, indicates the actual problem better.
>> Otherwise sounds great to me.
> 
> Maybe some links to articles that explain *why* the so called
> "UsrMerge" was needed/done would be a good idea.

This isn't UsrMerge tho.  I think bring that discussion into the news
item would probably be going too far beyond its intended scope.

[ Snip the rest ]

Documentation suggesting a separate /usr isn't necessary (or rather,
probably, is only necessary for certain things, like /usr-on-NFS or
LVM-without-ROOT or crypto-/usr ) does make sense in general but
probably that discussion would be better done in the Handbook (or
linked to by the Handbook) rather than in the news item.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlJDA6gACgkQ2ugaI38ACPA1gwD/bkBLl+XI0xB82C+ZR2e/YvcQ
L2JG9Jz1maj55IHTXNMBAJqAPjZs6FZjivVgyG/14TdxfKlpkAqAaBu8c1qUN097
=hQ0d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Sven Eden]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2087 bytes --]

Am Mittwoch, 25. September 2013, 11:39:20 schrieb Ian Stakenvicius:
> On 25/09/13 11:27 AM, Sven Eden wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 25. September 2013, 11:05:24 schrieb Ian
> > 
> > Stakenvicius:
> >> On 25/09/13 10:51 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius
> >>> <axs@gentoo.org>
> >>> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> William, I think what Tom was mentioning here is that he
> >>>> thinks a one-sentence answering the "Why" would be a good
> >>>> idea to have in the news item, so users that don't have a
> >>>> clue on all of these sep-/usr issues will get an idea of why
> >>>> the change is being made.
> >>> 
> >>> How about something like: Due to many upstream changes
> >>> properly supporting a separate /usr without an initramfs has
> >>> become increasingly difficult - despite all our efforts it
> >>> already breaks in some exotic configurations, and this is a
> >>> trend likely to grow worse.
> >>> 
> >>> Rich
> >> 
> >> How about changing "[properly] supporting a separate /usr without
> >> an initramfs" to "supporting a system with /usr missing at boot
> >> time"  ? More generic, indicates the actual problem better.
> >> Otherwise sounds great to me.
> > 
> > Maybe some links to articles that explain *why* the so called
> > "UsrMerge" was needed/done would be a good idea.
> 
> This isn't UsrMerge tho.  I think bring that discussion into the news
> item would probably be going too far beyond its intended scope.

Yes, of course. It is just that the mentioned upstream changes are because of 
the merge, meaning boot relevant stuff is installed in /usr instead of /.

> 
> [ Snip the rest ]
> 
> Documentation suggesting a separate /usr isn't necessary (or rather,
> probably, is only necessary for certain things, like /usr-on-NFS or
> LVM-without-ROOT or crypto-/usr ) does make sense in general but
> probably that discussion would be better done in the Handbook (or
> linked to by the Handbook) rather than in the news item.

Yes, maybe the references about why upstream did/does change belongs on a wiki 
page or something like that.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 222 bytes --]

All,

here is my latest update, again based on feedback from the list.

It seems a bit long to me, but I'm not sure how to make it any shorter
if we include the information about why this is happening.

Thoughts?

William

[-- Attachment #1.2: 2013-09-27-initramfs-required.en.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1151 bytes --]

Title: Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs
Author: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2013-09-27
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0

Due to many upstream changes, properly supporting Linux systems that
have /usr missing at boot time has become increasingly difficult.
Despite all our efforts, it already breaks in some exotic
configurations, and this is atrend likely to grow worse.

Linux systems which have / and /usr on separate file systems but do not
use an initramfs will not be supported starting on 01-Nov-2013.

If you have / and /usr on separate file systems and you are not
currently using an initramfs, you must set one up before this date.
Otherwise, at some point on or after this date, upgrading packages
will make your system unbootable.

For more information on the upstream changes and why using an initramfs
is the cleanest route forward, see the following URLs:

http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/01/the-boot-process

For more information on setting up an initramfs, see this URL:

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Initramfs/HOWTO

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 25/09/13 03:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> Due to many upstream changes, properly supporting Linux systems
> that have /usr missing at boot time has become increasingly
> difficult. Despite all our efforts, it already breaks in some
> exotic configurations, and this is atrend likely to grow worse.

s/atrend/trend/


Otherwise, looks great to me.  Also I don't think it's too long.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlJDNyQACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBmZgEAtFU088Cai2YHAJWa+uA3DUrR
z7lihZbqLE5OEzthvqMBAITkIdEkybod01p1oZFOv8+/ho25c1baQpbhbubUCian
=KwtT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 512 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 03:19:00PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 25/09/13 03:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Due to many upstream changes, properly supporting Linux systems
> > that have /usr missing at boot time has become increasingly
> > difficult. Despite all our efforts, it already breaks in some
> > exotic configurations, and this is atrend likely to grow worse.
> 
> s/atrend/trend/

How about s/is atrend/trend is/

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Rich Freeman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 513 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:16 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> It seems a bit long to me, but I'm not sure how to make it any shorter
> if we include the information about why this is happening.

I would use the newspaper article approach - put the most important
and actionable material at the top, and supplemental material towards
the bottom.

Here is a suggested way to accomplish this (attaching both a patch and
the new item in its entirety since patches aren't great for
re-ordering).

Rich

[-- Attachment #2: new --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 1145 bytes --]

Title: Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs
Author: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2013-09-27
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0

Linux systems which have / and /usr on separate file systems but do not
use an initramfs will not be supported starting on 01-Nov-2013.

If you have / and /usr on separate file systems and you are not
currently using an initramfs, you must set one up before this date.
Otherwise, at some point after this date upgrading packages
will make your system unbootable.

For more information on setting up an initramfs, see this URL:

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Initramfs/HOWTO

Due to many upstream changes, properly supporting Linux systems that
have /usr missing at boot time has become increasingly difficult.
Despite all our efforts, it already breaks in some exotic
configurations, and this is a trend likely to grow worse.

For more information on the upstream changes and why using an initramfs
is the cleanest route forward, see the following URLs:

http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/01/the-boot-process

[-- Attachment #3: patch --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 1578 bytes --]

--- orig	2013-09-25 15:33:21.727594436 -0400
+++ new	2013-09-25 15:35:03.176935141 -0400
@@ -5,25 +5,25 @@
 Revision: 1
 News-Item-Format: 1.0
 
-Due to many upstream changes, properly supporting Linux systems that
-have /usr missing at boot time has become increasingly difficult.
-Despite all our efforts, it already breaks in some exotic
-configurations, and this is atrend likely to grow worse.
-
 Linux systems which have / and /usr on separate file systems but do not
 use an initramfs will not be supported starting on 01-Nov-2013.
 
 If you have / and /usr on separate file systems and you are not
 currently using an initramfs, you must set one up before this date.
-Otherwise, at some point on or after this date, upgrading packages
+Otherwise, at some point after this date upgrading packages
 will make your system unbootable.
 
+For more information on setting up an initramfs, see this URL:
+
+https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Initramfs/HOWTO
+
+Due to many upstream changes, properly supporting Linux systems that
+have /usr missing at boot time has become increasingly difficult.
+Despite all our efforts, it already breaks in some exotic
+configurations, and this is a trend likely to grow worse.
+
 For more information on the upstream changes and why using an initramfs
 is the cleanest route forward, see the following URLs:
 
 http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
 https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/01/the-boot-process
-
-For more information on setting up an initramfs, see this URL:
-
-https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Initramfs/HOWTO

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 748 bytes --]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:37:34 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:16 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > It seems a bit long to me, but I'm not sure how to make it any
> > shorter if we include the information about why this is happening.
> 
> I would use the newspaper article approach - put the most important
> and actionable material at the top, and supplemental material towards
> the bottom.
>
> Here is a suggested way to accomplish this (...)

++ for this version.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

This should be the final version of the news item. If no one has any
issues, I will push it on 27-Sep utc.

Thanks,

William


[-- Attachment #1.2: 2013-09-27-initramfs-required.en.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1150 bytes --]

Title: Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs
Author: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2013-09-27
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0

Due to many upstream changes, properly supporting Linux systems that
have /usr missing at boot time has become increasingly difficult.
Despite all our efforts, it already breaks in some exotic
configurations, and this trend is likely to grow worse.

Linux systems which have / and /usr on separate file systems but do not
use an initramfs will not be supported starting on 01-Nov-2013.

If you have / and /usr on separate file systems and you are not
currently using an initramfs, you must set one up before this date.
Otherwise, at some point on or after this date, upgrading packages
will make your system unbootable.

For more information on the upstream changes and why using an initramfs
is the cleanest route forward, see the following URLs:

http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/01/the-boot-process

For more information on setting up an initramfs, see this URL:

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Initramfs/HOWTO

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 232 bytes --]

All,

I missed a message on this thread some how, thanks to tomwij for
pointing this out.

Here is the final version of the news item.

Let me know if you have any issues. Otherwise this will be pushed on
27-Sep.

Thanks,

William


[-- Attachment #1.2: 2013-09-27-initramfs-required.en.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1150 bytes --]

Title: Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs
Author: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2013-09-27
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0

Linux systems which have / and /usr on separate file systems but do not
use an initramfs will not be supported starting on 01-Nov-2013.

If you have / and /usr on separate file systems and you are not
currently using an initramfs, you must set one up before this date.
Otherwise, at some point on or after this date, upgrading packages
will make your system unbootable.

For more information on setting up an initramfs, see this URL:

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Initramfs/HOWTO

Due to many upstream changes, properly supporting Linux systems that
have /usr missing at boot time has become increasingly difficult.
Despite all our efforts, it already breaks in some exotic
configurations, and this trend is likely to grow worse.

For more information on the upstream changes and why using an initramfs
is the cleanest route forward, see the following URLs:

http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/01/the-boot-process

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Duncan]

William Hubbs posted on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:10:49 -0500 as excerpted:

> If you have / and /usr on separate file systems and you are not
> currently using an initramfs, you must set one up before this date.
> Otherwise, at some point on or after this date, upgrading packages will
> make your system unbootable.

That last sentence makes me uncomfortable, because I think to some it 
will look like more of the same "crying wolf" (from their perspective) 
they've seen from certain quarters before, all while initr*-less separate-
usr kept on working.  (I would have posted earlier, except it took me 
awhile, and reading the other replies, to finally figure out what was 
bothering me about it.  Sorry for the late suggestion.)

As such, I think it's at once too strong, because as we've already seen 
with busybox, there are other ways around it, and too weak, as in the 
context of all the other "crying wolf" some have seen on this subject, it 
doesn't really convey that things very well /could/ be different for 
gentooers this time, because /gentoo/ isn't going to be going out of its 
way to fix those bugs any more.

So I'd suggest something like this:

Otherwise, at some point on or after this date, a package update MAY make 
your system unbootable, and should it do so you'd be on your own, as 
gentoo will no longer be considering that a bug that it must fix.

(Perhaps someone has a more concise version that conveys the same idea?)

Because I think that better conveys the exact change, thus hopefully 
avoiding both the people that might otherwise say "but just as all the 
other times it didn't break for me", and the folks who might THINK it's 
more of the same, when there really IS a difference for gentooers this 
time, as it's gentoo that's no longer going to be running interference 
between upstream and gentoo users in this regard, and that's what has in 
fact been keeping it working for many gentooers to this point.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM, JD Horelick <jdhore1@gmail.com> wrote:
> My only issue here is that I feel like we should give users a bit longer
> than one month (34 days, close enough) to make this change. In some cases,
> it may require a large, architectural change which may take a while to be
> engineered and organized. I'd suggest making the cutoff for this January 1,
> 2014. I know that impedes our progress, but I feel it provides significant
> benefit to our users who may use seperate /usr.

30 days was approved by the Council after some discussion.  The fact
that this was coming was announced about 45 days ago now, though it
did not include a news item.  This really isn't much different than
any other change that has a potential to break systems, and we do not
routinely give many months of warning for these.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 876 bytes --]

On 11:03 Thu 26 Sep     , JD Horelick wrote:
> My only issue here is that I feel like we should give users a bit longer
> than one month (34 days, close enough) to make this change. In some cases,
> it may require a large, architectural change which may take a while to be
> engineered and organized. I'd suggest making the cutoff for this January 1,
> 2014. I know that impedes our progress, but I feel it provides significant
> benefit to our users who may use seperate /usr.

In reality it should be more like 60 days before any of those users are 
affected. We stop support in 30 days (which can't be done directly in 
stable), then we test that in ~arch for the usual 30 days before 
stabilizing.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux <http://dberkholz.com>
Analyst, RedMonk <http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: newsitem: initramfs required on Linux systems with separate /usr

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1151 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 05:39:44PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> William Hubbs posted on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:10:49 -0500 as excerpted:
> 
> > If you have / and /usr on separate file systems and you are not
> > currently using an initramfs, you must set one up before this date.
> > Otherwise, at some point on or after this date, upgrading packages will
> > make your system unbootable.
> Otherwise, at some point on or after this date, a package update MAY make 
> your system unbootable, and should it do so you'd be on your own, as 
> gentoo will no longer be considering that a bug that it must fix.

s/may/will/
s/should it do so/when it does/

It isn't a matter of something *may* break if you don't take action,
something *will* break.

Yes, there has been a lot of debate on the mls, but no news item has
ever been sent out on the subject, so I think sending out a news
item makes things more official in itself.

I have about an hour before I want to push this newsitem, so please
respond soon.

Does anyone else think I should make the change Duncan suggests, with
the substitutions I pointed out?

Thanks,

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]