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-51063-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1SLmit-0000Zp-P8
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:40:24 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 17D24E0AFB;
Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:40:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0A1E0AD7
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:39:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1BA41B40E6
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:39:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5
tests=[AWL=-1.131, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.164,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01]
autolearn=no
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id F8eLyYHV7Ghf for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>;
Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:39:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3])
(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E59EA1B4010
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:39:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <lnx-gentoo-dev@m.gmane.org>)
id 1SLmhj-0005cF-9Q
for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 04:39:11 +0200
Received: from 109.176.242.43 ([109.176.242.43])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 04:39:11 +0200
Received: from slong by 109.176.242.43 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 04:39:11 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
From: Steven J Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 03:43 +0100
Organization: Friendly-Coders
Message-ID: <jmvr06$96o$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <20353.41193.129711.306663@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120408220422.GA26440@kroah.com> <CAGfcS_mLRBCEuvs2gQu8Ov9XD2MoKmFjCn+giLFsLLnvikoYOw@mail.gmail.com> <jlv8e2$fdj$1@dough.gmane.org> <4F833687.4040004@gentoo.org> <jm2q2o$4n7$1@dough.gmane.org> <4F8503DF.1010802@gentoo.org> <jm43b9$a0e$1@dough.gmane.org> <4F85E21C.4060106@gentoo.org>
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="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 109.176.242.43
X-Archives-Salt: d72211dd-0399-4b8e-8138-ca29f5b64f1e
X-Archives-Hash: c87e51d774ce5d0456d13904c32be01e
Zac Medico wrote:
> 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.
OFC not: the generic method is to use an initramfs. But many of us *do* have
the drivers for the device nodes built-in: it's part of the initial setup in
configuring a kernel (manually) and getting it to boot.
I can't speak for others, but that level of control is why I, for one, chose
Gentoo in the first place. I don't see the need for a source-based distro to
include everything and the kitchen-sink: that principle applies via USE-
flags, and it applies via having a lean kernel that doesn't contain modules
for 15 PCI controllers my motherboard doesn't have, and never could have.
The Council has voted that Gentoo continue to support that subset, without
an initramfs.
I'm glad you accept that we don't need to fork udev to do this, though, so
there isn't that maintenance issue, beyond Gentoo initscripts (and if there
should be in future, a Council member has already committed to overseeing
that work.)
--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)