Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8

[Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@gentoo.org>]

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Moreover, the lvm problem is caused by a very ancient and ill decision
>> about doing what upstream tells you to avoid: have mdev in the
>> initramfs and udev on the final pivot rooted system. This was just
>> looking for troubles but the smarties at the time decided that they
>> knew better... And now, tadam, the bug is served...
>> People can use genkernel-next, which comes with _proper_ udev support
>> (see --udev).
>
> I won't comment about the entire gnome monolithic windows like, vendor
> controlled system that we cooperate with.
>
> But the above statement is way too much... there should be nothing
> wrong in having mdev during boot. initramfs should be simple as
> possible and busybox provides this functionality well. The problem is
> in udev not in any other component, that probably expects now to run
> first and have total control over the boot process. I hope eudev does
> not suffer from this.
>
> If genkernel will start using udev instead of busybox, it will
> probably be the last day of me use it.

Fellow developer, let me tell you one thing, go clone the git repo and
see how --udev is implemented and realize that mdev is still supported
as it was before.

>
> I am just waiting for the point in which you claim that systemd should
> be run at initramfs, because of the dependency lock-in, so you have
> almost the entire system within initramfs.

While it may have several advantages, there is no pressing need in
supporting systemd in the initramfs for now.

>
> Regards,
> Alon
>



-- 
Fabio Erculiani