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 ) id 1SI3gS-00061W-MP for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:58:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B168E0C9F; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:58:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186FFE0DCA for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:57:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.42.4] (staff-wireless.saddleback.edu [209.129.85.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8A4E64273 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:57:20 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F85E21C.4060106@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:57:16 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120404 Thunderbird/11.0.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012 References: <20353.41193.129711.306663@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120408220422.GA26440@kroah.com> <4F833687.4040004@gentoo.org> <4F8503DF.1010802@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 4967b5b6-5229-4f95-be1e-74926f2fc97f X-Archives-Hash: ee26e8ec0d8fdacc72a4d932c690584b On 04/11/2012 07:13 AM, Steven J Long wrote: > Zac Medico wrote: > >> On 04/10/2012 07:28 PM, Steven J Long wrote: >>> I suppose you could script that, but again, it just seems like a lot of >>> bother to implement an "alternative" that doesn't actually gain anything >>> over the traditional setup (plus making sure that partitions are mounted >>> before udev starts.) >> >> At least in the case of udev, we gain from not having to maintain a fork. >> > "Making sure that partitions are mounted before udev starts" is a lot less > of an ask than setting up an initramfs, and changing the way we've worked > for years. It's what you proposed: an earlymounts init script, or patches to > Gentoo initscripts to do the same thing. Neither involves any patches to > udev proper, so no fork needs to be maintained. It's not generally practical to do mounts prior to starting udev, since udev can may be needed to create the device nodes that are needed for for performing the mounts. Maybe a subset of users can get away with it by relying on devtmpfs and having the drivers built into the kernel, but that won't work for everyone. -- Thanks, Zac