[gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Howdy,

Well, this is what I am thinking about jumping into.  Ya'll ready for
this?  I'm thinking about redoing my partition layout.  I'm wanting to
keep / (root) on a normal ext4 file system.  I want to put /usr, /var,
/home, and such on LVM.  I been using that dracut thingy to build the
init thingy.  Sorry, I'm full of thingys tonight.  Maybe I need my meds?
 Anyway, the init thingy seems to be working, I think.  I asked a while
back how to tell for sure but it didn't get any replies so I am not real
sure it is.  I do get this tho:

root@fireball / # dmesg | grep init
[    0.000000] Command line: root=/dev/sda3 init=/sbin/init
[    0.000000] initial memory mapped : 0 - 20000000
[    0.000000] init_memory_mapping: 0000000000000000-00000000bfc91000
[    0.000000] init_memory_mapping: 0000000100000000-0000000440000000
[    0.000000] Kernel command line: root=/dev/sda3 init=/sbin/init
[    0.000000] Memory: 16387452k/17825792k available (6262k kernel code,
1052572k absent, 385768k reserved, 6647k data, 4852k init)
[    0.003045] Security Framework initialized
[    0.388120] SCSI subsystem initialized
[    0.410739] pnp: PnP ACPI init
[    0.787822] Trying to unpack rootfs image as initramfs...
[    0.867787] Freeing initrd memory: 5084k freed
[    0.880111] audit: initializing netlink socket (disabled)
[    0.880439] type=2000 audit(1331081750.879:1): initialized
[    0.912626] fuse init (API version 7.17)
[    1.258561] ehci_hcd 0000:00:12.2: init command 0010005 (park)=0
ithresh=1 period=512 RUN
[    1.270152] ehci_hcd 0000:00:13.2: init command 0010005 (park)=0
ithresh=1 period=512 RUN
[    1.583458] device-mapper: ioctl: 4.22.0-ioctl (2011-10-19)
initialised: dm-devel@redhat.com
[    4.258421] init-early.sh used greatest stack depth: 3696 bytes left
[    4.503735] init.sh used greatest stack depth: 3576 bytes left
root@fireball / # dmesg | grep dracut
[    3.018189] dracut: Checking reiserfs: /dev/sda3
[    3.018531] dracut: issuing reiserfsck -a  /dev/sda3
[    3.033879] dracut: Reiserfs super block in block 16 on 0x803 of
format 3.6 with standard journal
[    3.034463] dracut: Blocks (total/free): 4883760/2502678 by 4096 bytes
[    3.034781] dracut: Filesystem is clean
[    3.035210] dracut: Remounting /dev/sda3 with -o ro
[    3.082413] dracut: Mounted root filesystem /dev/sda3
[    3.158322] dracut: Switching root
root@fireball / #

And grub looks like this:

title=Initramfs-new_kernel
root (hd0,0)
kernel /boot/bzImage-3.2.2-1 root=/dev/sda3 init=/sbin/init
initrd /initramfs-3.2.2-1.img

Does anyone think dracut is not working?  I need to make certain before
diving into the next step.

I have a second drive that is plenty large enough.  Thanks Kashani.  I
plan to move everything currently to the larger drive then just sort of
do a fresh install on my regular OS drive.

One question I have right off the bat, how do I tell dracut to mount
/usr?  I think it used to have a usr USE flag but that seems to have
disappeared during a upgrade.  Is it magic?  Does it need to mount /var
as well for logging?

Just for the record, dracut is the only way I could get a init thingy to
build and let me boot.  I tried different ways and they just didn't
work.  At least I think dracut is working which is a good start.  ;-)

I hope there is a few dracut users on here that have at least /usr on a
separate partition.

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Well, this is what I am thinking about jumping into.  Ya'll ready for
> this?  I'm thinking about redoing my partition layout.  I'm wanting to
> keep / (root) on a normal ext4 file system.  I want to put /usr, /var,
> /home, and such on LVM.  I been using that dracut thingy to build the
> init thingy.  Sorry, I'm full of thingys tonight.  Maybe I need my meds?
>  Anyway, the init thingy seems to be working, I think.  I asked a while
> back how to tell for sure but it didn't get any replies so I am not real
> sure it is.  I do get this tho:
>
> root@fireball / # dmesg | grep init
> [    0.000000] Command line: root=/dev/sda3 init=/sbin/init
> [    0.000000] initial memory mapped : 0 - 20000000
> [    0.000000] init_memory_mapping: 0000000000000000-00000000bfc91000
> [    0.000000] init_memory_mapping: 0000000100000000-0000000440000000
> [    0.000000] Kernel command line: root=/dev/sda3 init=/sbin/init
> [    0.000000] Memory: 16387452k/17825792k available (6262k kernel code,
> 1052572k absent, 385768k reserved, 6647k data, 4852k init)
> [    0.003045] Security Framework initialized
> [    0.388120] SCSI subsystem initialized
> [    0.410739] pnp: PnP ACPI init
> [    0.787822] Trying to unpack rootfs image as initramfs...
> [    0.867787] Freeing initrd memory: 5084k freed
> [    0.880111] audit: initializing netlink socket (disabled)
> [    0.880439] type=2000 audit(1331081750.879:1): initialized
> [    0.912626] fuse init (API version 7.17)
> [    1.258561] ehci_hcd 0000:00:12.2: init command 0010005 (park)=0
> ithresh=1 period=512 RUN
> [    1.270152] ehci_hcd 0000:00:13.2: init command 0010005 (park)=0
> ithresh=1 period=512 RUN
> [    1.583458] device-mapper: ioctl: 4.22.0-ioctl (2011-10-19)
> initialised: dm-devel@redhat.com
> [    4.258421] init-early.sh used greatest stack depth: 3696 bytes left
> [    4.503735] init.sh used greatest stack depth: 3576 bytes left
> root@fireball / # dmesg | grep dracut
> [    3.018189] dracut: Checking reiserfs: /dev/sda3
> [    3.018531] dracut: issuing reiserfsck -a  /dev/sda3
> [    3.033879] dracut: Reiserfs super block in block 16 on 0x803 of
> format 3.6 with standard journal
> [    3.034463] dracut: Blocks (total/free): 4883760/2502678 by 4096 bytes
> [    3.034781] dracut: Filesystem is clean
> [    3.035210] dracut: Remounting /dev/sda3 with -o ro
> [    3.082413] dracut: Mounted root filesystem /dev/sda3
> [    3.158322] dracut: Switching root
> root@fireball / #
>
> And grub looks like this:
>
> title=Initramfs-new_kernel
> root (hd0,0)
> kernel /boot/bzImage-3.2.2-1 root=/dev/sda3 init=/sbin/init
> initrd /initramfs-3.2.2-1.img
>
> Does anyone think dracut is not working?  I need to make certain before
> diving into the next step.
>
> I have a second drive that is plenty large enough.  Thanks Kashani.  I
> plan to move everything currently to the larger drive then just sort of
> do a fresh install on my regular OS drive.
>
> One question I have right off the bat, how do I tell dracut to mount
> /usr?  I think it used to have a usr USE flag but that seems to have
> disappeared during a upgrade.  Is it magic?  Does it need to mount /var
> as well for logging?
>
> Just for the record, dracut is the only way I could get a init thingy to
> build and let me boot.  I tried different ways and they just didn't
> work.  At least I think dracut is working which is a good start.  ;-)
>
> I hope there is a few dracut users on here that have at least /usr on a
> separate partition.

I keep my /usr partition in /, but seeing the modules from dracut, the
"magic" happens at:

/usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh

Basically, it seems that if /usr is specified in /etc/fstab, then
dracut will mount it. It says nothing about LVM, but that is taken
care of in the scripts at:

/usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/90lvm

I'm not familiar with LVM, but it seems simple enough. And you can
create and modify your own dracut modules, of course.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> I keep my /usr partition in /, but seeing the modules from dracut, the
> "magic" happens at:
> 
> /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh
> 
> Basically, it seems that if /usr is specified in /etc/fstab, then
> dracut will mount it. It says nothing about LVM, but that is taken
> care of in the scripts at:
> 
> /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/90lvm
> 
> I'm not familiar with LVM, but it seems simple enough. And you can
> create and modify your own dracut modules, of course.
> 
> Regards.


I thought is was magic.  lol  I'm glad to get confirmation of this.
Also, does it look to you like it is using the init thingy now?  From
what I see in dmesg it looks like it is working.

Thanks for the reply.  It's a start.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> I keep my /usr partition in /, but seeing the modules from dracut, the
>> "magic" happens at:
>>
>> /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh
>>
>> Basically, it seems that if /usr is specified in /etc/fstab, then
>> dracut will mount it. It says nothing about LVM, but that is taken
>> care of in the scripts at:
>>
>> /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/90lvm
>>
>> I'm not familiar with LVM, but it seems simple enough. And you can
>> create and modify your own dracut modules, of course.
>>
>> Regards.
>
>
> I thought is was magic.  lol  I'm glad to get confirmation of this.
> Also, does it look to you like it is using the init thingy now?

From:

[    0.787822] Trying to unpack rootfs image as initramfs...

I would say it's using an initramfs; if you only specify the dracut
created one in grub or lilo, that should be the one.

And from /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh:36, you
should grep for the string "Mounting /usr" in your logs. It seems that
the loglevel is info, so it should pop up by default.

Finally, and it's none of my bussines, but reiserfs? Seriously?

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>>> I keep my /usr partition in /, but seeing the modules from dracut, the
>>> "magic" happens at:
>>>
>>> /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh
>>>
>>> Basically, it seems that if /usr is specified in /etc/fstab, then
>>> dracut will mount it. It says nothing about LVM, but that is taken
>>> care of in the scripts at:
>>>
>>> /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/90lvm
>>>
>>> I'm not familiar with LVM, but it seems simple enough. And you can
>>> create and modify your own dracut modules, of course.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>
>>
>> I thought is was magic.  lol  I'm glad to get confirmation of this.
>> Also, does it look to you like it is using the init thingy now?
> 
> From:
> 
> [    0.787822] Trying to unpack rootfs image as initramfs...
> 
> I would say it's using an initramfs; if you only specify the dracut
> created one in grub or lilo, that should be the one.
> 
> And from /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh:36, you
> should grep for the string "Mounting /usr" in your logs. It seems that
> the loglevel is info, so it should pop up by default.
> 
> Finally, and it's none of my bussines, but reiserfs? Seriously?
> 
> Regards.


Well, that is one of the things I want to change.  I have several
reasons for wanting to change this mess.  One is a file system change
and the other is to use LVM for stuff.  I basically want LVM for
everything but root itself and /boot of course.  Right now, /usr is
still on the root file system.  I have portage on a separate partition
tho.

So far, reiserfs has not gave me any problems, not OS wise anyway.  I
did have a large drive that gave me issues but I'm not sure if it was
the file system or not, tho it could very well have been.  It now has
ext4 tho.  lol

I'm going to beat some sense into this other drive and make a few
partitions.  I may not do this tonight but then again, I might.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 584 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 00:03:44 -0600, Dale wrote:

> Well, that is one of the things I want to change.  I have several
> reasons for wanting to change this mess.  One is a file system change
> and the other is to use LVM for stuff.  I basically want LVM for
> everything but root itself and /boot of course. 

If you're already using an initramfs to mount /usr, you may as well put
root on LVM too and let it mount that too. Alternatively, have a small /,
a few hundred MB, and no separate /boot.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

without C people would code in Basi, Pasal and Obol

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

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 00:03:44 -0600, Dale wrote:
> 
>> Well, that is one of the things I want to change.  I have several
>> reasons for wanting to change this mess.  One is a file system change
>> and the other is to use LVM for stuff.  I basically want LVM for
>> everything but root itself and /boot of course. 
> 
> If you're already using an initramfs to mount /usr, you may as well put
> root on LVM too and let it mount that too. Alternatively, have a small /,
> a few hundred MB, and no separate /boot.
> 
> 


That could be a good idea.  I got other issues right now.

I decided to do a fresh install on the larger drive.  I sort of like to
brush up every once in a while.  I got to the point where I want to do a
emerge -e system then copy my world file over and finish it up.  It
appears that the stage3 tarball is in a state where not much can be
upgraded.  Every time I try to update something, I get a list of blocks,
either packages or USE flags.

I'm going to try to beat some sense into this a while longer then I'm
going to bed, right after rm -rfv /mnt/gentoo/* is started.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 424 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:45:53 -0600, Dale wrote:

> I'm going to try to beat some sense into this a while longer then I'm
> going to bed, right after rm -rfv /mnt/gentoo/* is started.  ;-)

What's the point in using -v if you're not there to watch it? ;-)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Documentation: (n.) a novel sold with software, designed to entertain the
               operator during episodes of bugs or glitches.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 774 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:45:53 -0600, Dale wrote:

> I decided to do a fresh install on the larger drive.  I sort of like to
> brush up every once in a while.  I got to the point where I want to do a
> emerge -e system then copy my world file over and finish it up.  It
> appears that the stage3 tarball is in a state where not much can be
> upgraded.  Every time I try to update something, I get a list of blocks,
> either packages or USE flags.

I've seen that if you switch to ~arch and make wholesale USE flag
changes. I think I avoided most of it by switching arch, doing emerge -e
system or world and then changing USE flags.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Why marry a virgin? If she wasn't good enough for the rest of them, then
she isn't good enough for you.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:45:53 -0600, Dale wrote:
> 
>> I decided to do a fresh install on the larger drive.  I sort of like to
>> brush up every once in a while.  I got to the point where I want to do a
>> emerge -e system then copy my world file over and finish it up.  It
>> appears that the stage3 tarball is in a state where not much can be
>> upgraded.  Every time I try to update something, I get a list of blocks,
>> either packages or USE flags.
> 
> I've seen that if you switch to ~arch and make wholesale USE flag
> changes. I think I avoided most of it by switching arch, doing emerge -e
> system or world and then changing USE flags.
> 
> 

I even tried USE="-*" emerge -e system and it just griped.  I have also
tried to upgrade one package at a time.  Each one complains about some
other package.

I'll try again another time.  I'm ready to hang portage right now.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 633 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:30:41 -0600, Dale wrote:

> > I've seen that if you switch to ~arch and make wholesale USE flag
> > changes. I think I avoided most of it by switching arch, doing emerge
> > -e system or world and then changing USE flags.

> I even tried USE="-*" emerge -e system and it just griped.  I have also
> tried to upgrade one package at a time.  Each one complains about some
> other package.

USE="-*" is horrible. Leave the USE flags as they were in the stage 3,
rebuild as needed then switch back, probably piecemeal, to what you want.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Top Oxymorons Number 23: Sweet sorrow

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

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:30:41 -0600, Dale wrote:
> 
>>> I've seen that if you switch to ~arch and make wholesale USE flag
>>> changes. I think I avoided most of it by switching arch, doing emerge
>>> -e system or world and then changing USE flags.
> 
>> I even tried USE="-*" emerge -e system and it just griped.  I have also
>> tried to upgrade one package at a time.  Each one complains about some
>> other package.
> 
> USE="-*" is horrible. Leave the USE flags as they were in the stage 3,
> rebuild as needed then switch back, probably piecemeal, to what you want.
> 
> 


Yea, each thing has its negatives.  It doesn't like the default USE line
either tho.  <  sighs >  I'm getting a BIGGER hammer.

Right now, it won't even install gentoolkit.  Weird.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[William Kenworthy]

On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 03:45 -0600, Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 00:03:44 -0600, Dale wrote:
> > 
> >> Well, that is one of the things I want to change.  I have several
> >> reasons for wanting to change this mess.  One is a file system change
> >> and the other is to use LVM for stuff.  I basically want LVM for
> >> everything but root itself and /boot of course. 
> > 
> > If you're already using an initramfs to mount /usr, you may as well put
> > root on LVM too and let it mount that too. Alternatively, have a small /,
> > a few hundred MB, and no separate /boot.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> That could be a good idea.  I got other issues right now.
> 
> I decided to do a fresh install on the larger drive.  I sort of like to
> brush up every once in a while.  I got to the point where I want to do a
> emerge -e system then copy my world file over and finish it up.  It
> appears that the stage3 tarball is in a state where not much can be
> upgraded.  Every time I try to update something, I get a list of blocks,
> either packages or USE flags.
> 
> I'm going to try to beat some sense into this a while longer then I'm
> going to bed, right after rm -rfv /mnt/gentoo/* is started.  ;-)
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 

ah LVM, dont you just love it ... just ran low on space on a /home
partition across town.  ok, reclaim some space from /var/data  which at
1.4T has plenty to spare.  Once Ive finished I noticed a "small"
problem ... typed 1G instead of 1T when shrinking /var/data, and the
89Gb packet capture I had there is toast :(

One of those "Ah F..." moments ... love backups.

Billk

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[pk]

On 2012-03-10 03:48, Dale wrote:
> Howdy,

Howdy!

> this?  I'm thinking about redoing my partition layout.  I'm wanting to
> keep / (root) on a normal ext4 file system.  I want to put /usr, /var,

As long as you don't use the udev version that requires access to /usr
at boot time (or mdev) then you can keep using a non-init boot (I do),
as long as /bin /sbin is on root...

Btw, does anyone know which version of udev requires access to /usr? I'm
running latest stable here 171-r5 and I have separate partitions for
/home /opt /usr /usr/local /tmp /var, all on LVM and /boot on a separate
partition outside of LVM, and it works fine.

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 479 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:58:18 +0100, pk wrote:

> Btw, does anyone know which version of udev requires access to /usr? I'm
> running latest stable here 171-r5 and I have separate partitions for
> /home /opt /usr /usr/local /tmp /var, all on LVM and /boot on a separate
> partition outside of LVM, and it works fine.

I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

WinErr 014: Keyboard locked - Try anything you can think of.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[pk]

On 2012-03-10 16:35, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.

So udev-181 (masked) is ok to use without initrd and separate /usr
then? Thanks for the info!

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:50 PM, pk <peterk2@coolmail.se> wrote:
> On 2012-03-10 16:35, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.
>
> So udev-181 (masked) is ok to use without initrd and separate /usr
> then? Thanks for the info!

That's one case; I would not take it for granted that it would work in
any other case. The fact is, udev upstream does not support a
separated /usr without an initramfs since . That Neil got it working
may be a fluke, good luck, the phase of the moon, or all from above
combined.

If you plan to keep a separated /usr and refuse to use an initramfs, I
would recommend sticking to the last version *you* know for sure it
works, or risk getting a nasty surprise at some upgrade.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 588 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:50:02 +0100, pk wrote:

> > I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.  
> 
> So udev-181 (masked) is ok to use without initrd and separate /usr
> then? Thanks for the info!

testing, not masked. Although it turns out that the latest in ~amd64 is
the same as you are running on stable. 181 is masked and the comments in
package.mask imply it is because of the separate /usr problem.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

No trees were harmed in the sending of this message. However, a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:50 PM, pk <peterk2@coolmail.se> wrote:
> On 2012-03-10 16:35, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.
>
> So udev-181 (masked) is ok to use without initrd and separate /usr
> then? Thanks for the info!

Just posted to -devel, the news item regarding the unmasking of udev-181:

"This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of
udev >=181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your
system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr.

"An initramfs which does this is created by >=sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25 or
>=sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be
sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr.

"Also, if you are using OpenRC, you must upgrade to >= openrc-0.9.9.

For more information on why this has been done, see the following url:
http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken"

The news item is being discussed, but something similar will be
submitted as news item for every Gentoo user.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[pk]

On 2012-03-11 03:36, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> "This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of
> udev >=181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your
> system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr.

Ok, I thank both you and Neil for this info. In hindsight I should have
looked deeper before asking but now it's out there so other's wanting to
know (on the gentoo-user list), knows...

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Jorge Martínez López]

Hi!

I had some struggle with a separate /usr on top of LVM and the dracut
thing. I noticed that udev was complaining at boot that it could not
find some scripts.

The usmount dracut module did not work for me because it could not
find /usr. So what I did was to include the fstab-sys smodule in
dracut:

/etc/dracut.conf

# Dracut modules to omit
omit_dracutmodules+="usrmount"

# Dracut modules to add to the default
add_dracutmodules+="fstab-sys"

Then I created /etc/fstab.sys with just the /usr partition

/dev/disk/by-uuid/90d82b02-e6c2-4011-940e-783d12b0c4fe		/usr		ext4		noatime		1 2

Dracut could only find the partition by using the uuid (use blkid to
find it easily).

The next step was to remove /usr from /etc/fstab to prevent /usr from
being mounted twice (the boot process does not like it).

The last obstacle is /etc/mtab. By the time /usr is mounted I believe
/ is mounted as read only, so mount cannot update /etc/mtab. The
trivial solutions is to delete /etc/mtab and make it a symlink to
/proc/mounts . In that case it is always up to date.

Of course, YMMV. Be careful when changing things that can prevent your
machine from booting and make sure you have a live CD at hand.

Cheers,
-- 
Jorge Martínez López <jorgeml@gmail.com> http://www.jorgeml.net
      Google Talk / XMPP: jorgeml@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

2012/3/11 Jorge Martínez López <jorgeml@gmail.com>:
> Hi!
>
> I had some struggle with a separate /usr on top of LVM and the dracut
> thing. I noticed that udev was complaining at boot that it could not
> find some scripts.
>
> The usmount dracut module did not work for me because it could not
> find /usr. So what I did was to include the fstab-sys smodule in
> dracut:
>
> /etc/dracut.conf
>
> # Dracut modules to omit
> omit_dracutmodules+="usrmount"
>
> # Dracut modules to add to the default
> add_dracutmodules+="fstab-sys"
>
> Then I created /etc/fstab.sys with just the /usr partition
>
> /dev/disk/by-uuid/90d82b02-e6c2-4011-940e-783d12b0c4fe          /usr            ext4            noatime         1 2
>
> Dracut could only find the partition by using the uuid (use blkid to
> find it easily).

> The next step was to remove /usr from /etc/fstab to prevent /usr from
> being mounted twice (the boot process does not like it).

Mmmh. Could you try to use LABEL= in /etc/fstab (not /etc/fstab), and
see if that way it gets mounted, and only once? The udev developers
recommend using either UUID or LABEL; and LABEL it's easier (and
prettier) to set.

> The last obstacle is /etc/mtab. By the time /usr is mounted I believe
> / is mounted as read only, so mount cannot update /etc/mtab. The
> trivial solutions is to delete /etc/mtab and make it a symlink to
> /proc/mounts . In that case it is always up to date.

I think the link is to /proc/self/mounts; /proc/mounts it's a link to
it, actually.

> Of course, YMMV. Be careful when changing things that can prevent your
> machine from booting and make sure you have a live CD at hand.

Good advice. Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Jorge Martínez López]

Hello!

2012/3/11 Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com>:

>> The next step was to remove /usr from /etc/fstab to prevent /usr from
>> being mounted twice (the boot process does not like it).
>
> Mmmh. Could you try to use LABEL= in /etc/fstab (not /etc/fstab), and
> see if that way it gets mounted, and only once? The udev developers
> recommend using either UUID or LABEL; and LABEL it's easier (and
> prettier) to set.

I actually did not remove it:
/dev/mapper/vg-usr		/usr		ext4		noauto,noatime	1 2

I am afraid of what would happen if I remove noauto. As far as I
recall the boot procedure aborted.

>
>> The last obstacle is /etc/mtab. By the time /usr is mounted I believe
>> / is mounted as read only, so mount cannot update /etc/mtab. The
>> trivial solutions is to delete /etc/mtab and make it a symlink to
>> /proc/mounts . In that case it is always up to date.
>
> I think the link is to /proc/self/mounts; /proc/mounts it's a link to
> it, actually.

You are right.

Cheers,
-- 
Jorge Martínez López <jorgeml@gmail.com> http://www.jorgeml.net
      Google Talk / XMPP: jorgeml@gmail.com

[gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[walt]

On 03/11/2012 05:16 AM, Jorge Martínez López wrote:
> Hi!

Hi Jorge.

> I had some struggle with a separate /usr on top of LVM

I'm just curious why you use a separate /usr, and why you are
willing to struggle to keep it that way.  Several people have
posted opinions here in recent months, but I don't recall that
you are one of them.

Disclaimer:  I don't have a dog in this fight.  I just want to
understand the underlying principles.

Thanks.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Jorge Martínez López]

Hi!

2012/3/11 walt <w41ter@gmail.com>:
> On 03/11/2012 05:16 AM, Jorge Martínez López wrote:
>> Hi!
>
> Hi Jorge.
>
>> I had some struggle with a separate /usr on top of LVM
>
> I'm just curious why you use a separate /usr, and why you are
> willing to struggle to keep it that way.  Several people have
> posted opinions here in recent months, but I don't recall that
> you are one of them.

I believe that by the time I installed Gentoo it was recommended on
the installation handbook. I did not give it much thought. I believed
back then that thanks to LVM I could always grow and shrink my
partitions as needed.

If I had to do it again I would probably go the btrfs route (once they
get fsck working).

Regarding the whole /usr discussion, I trust the developers to know
what they are doing better than I do and I did not find any serious
flaw on their reasoning. It took me just a couple of hours to get the
initrd working, so I did it and moved on. On the other hand I can
understand some people disagree. I do not have a problem with that.

Cheers,
-- 
Jorge Martínez López <jorgeml@gmail.com> http://www.jorgeml.net
      Google Talk / XMPP: jorgeml@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Michael Mol]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Jorge Martínez López <jorgeml@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> 2012/3/11 walt <w41ter@gmail.com>:
>> On 03/11/2012 05:16 AM, Jorge Martínez López wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>
>> Hi Jorge.
>>
>>> I had some struggle with a separate /usr on top of LVM
>>
>> I'm just curious why you use a separate /usr, and why you are
>> willing to struggle to keep it that way.  Several people have
>> posted opinions here in recent months, but I don't recall that
>> you are one of them.
>
> I believe that by the time I installed Gentoo it was recommended on
> the installation handbook. I did not give it much thought. I believed
> back then that thanks to LVM I could always grow and shrink my
> partitions as needed.
>
> If I had to do it again I would probably go the btrfs route (once they
> get fsck working).
>
> Regarding the whole /usr discussion, I trust the developers to know
> what they are doing better than I do and I did not find any serious
> flaw on their reasoning. It took me just a couple of hours to get the
> initrd working, so I did it and moved on. On the other hand I can
> understand some people disagree. I do not have a problem with that.

Don't forget you're using Gentoo; you're implicitly not very far
removed from the skill levels of the developers themselves.


-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Bruce Hill, Jr.]

On March 12, 2012 at 2:30 PM Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:

> Don't forget you're using Gentoo; you're implicitly not very far
> removed from the skill levels of the developers themselves.
>
>
> --
> :wq
>

Maybe you're not, but it only takes me a few minutes being around chithead
and NeddySeagoon for me to realize "I ain't gotta Gentoo clue!"
--
Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
126 Fenco Drive            ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
support at happypenguincomputers dot com
http://www.happypenguincomputers.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 565 bytes --]

On Monday 12 Mar 2012 18:39:26 Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote:
> On March 12, 2012 at 2:30 PM Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Don't forget you're using Gentoo; you're implicitly not very far
> > removed from the skill levels of the developers themselves.
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > :wq
> 
> Maybe you're not, but it only takes me a few minutes being around chithead
> and NeddySeagoon for me to realize "I ain't gotta Gentoo clue!"

Crikey!  Is Neddy still around!   O_O

 ... and I thought that I was knocking on a bit.  :-))
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Michael Mol]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
<daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On March 12, 2012 at 2:30 PM Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't forget you're using Gentoo; you're implicitly not very far
>> removed from the skill levels of the developers themselves.
>>
>>
>> --
>> :wq
>>
>
> Maybe you're not, but it only takes me a few minutes being around chithead
> and NeddySeagoon for me to realize "I ain't gotta Gentoo clue!"

Point is, most people I've seen in here know a lot more than most[1],
and are generally intelligent enough to overcome any limitation that
isn't fundamentally philosophical in origin (see mdev vs udev, ALSA vs
OSS4 vs PulseAudio, lvm vs mdraid vs physical raid vs btrfs vs zfs).

So don't sell yourself too short, and don't blindly trust the opinions
and decisions of others; they're not always as right as assume them to
be, and managing to get Gentoo working suggests you have some right to
point out when the emperor's not wearing any clothes.


[1] I like to surround myself with people smarter or more
knowledgeable than I am about things, and I hit the motherload in this
list...
-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:39:26 -0400 (EDT)
"Bruce Hill, Jr." <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On March 12, 2012 at 2:30 PM Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Don't forget you're using Gentoo; you're implicitly not very far
> > removed from the skill levels of the developers themselves.
> >
> >
> > --
> > :wq
> >
> 
> Maybe you're not, but it only takes me a few minutes being around
> chithead and NeddySeagoon for me to realize "I ain't gotta Gentoo
> clue!" 

And guess what? That's about where most of us started out :-)

It gets better, it really does (ye gods now I sound like a behavioural
therapist....)

--
> Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
> 126 Fenco Drive            ( \
> Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
> 662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
> support at happypenguincomputers dot com
> http://www.happypenguincomputers.com
> 



-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On March 12, 2012 at 2:30 PM Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Don't forget you're using Gentoo; you're implicitly not very far
>> removed from the skill levels of the developers themselves.
>>
>>
>> --
>> :wq
>>
> 
> Maybe you're not, but it only takes me a few minutes being around chithead
> and NeddySeagoon for me to realize "I ain't gotta Gentoo clue!"
> --
> Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
> 126 Fenco Drive            ( \
> Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
> 662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
> support at happypenguincomputers dot com
> http://www.happypenguincomputers.com
> 
> 


I like that quote.  I may not be dev material but I know this /usr mess
is not right.  The only reason it is happening is because of one or two
distros that push it to make it easier for themselves.

I think mdev has shown it can be fixed.  Given time, it just may replace
udev then the udev dev can screw up his own stuff on not bother other
distros.  I'm giving mdev some thought here.  I want /usr on LVM which
means it has to be separate.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On March 12, 2012 at 2:30 PM Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't forget you're using Gentoo; you're implicitly not very far
>>> removed from the skill levels of the developers themselves.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> :wq
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you're not, but it only takes me a few minutes being around chithead
>> and NeddySeagoon for me to realize "I ain't gotta Gentoo clue!"
>> --
>> Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
>> 126 Fenco Drive            ( \
>> Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
>> 662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
>> support at happypenguincomputers dot com
>> http://www.happypenguincomputers.com
>>
>>
>
>
> I like that quote.  I may not be dev material but I know this /usr mess
> is not right.  The only reason it is happening is because of one or two
> distros that push it to make it easier for themselves.

I have yet to see some hard evidence on this claim.

> I think mdev has shown it can be fixed.

As Alan said in other thread, it can be "fixed" (if you think is not
right) for some very specific cases. Alan mentioned servers, really
simple desktops with simple hotplug devices, and embedded systems. For
mdev to "fix" the situation in the general case, it would have to
cover all the setups udev covers. That means bluetooth devices
(including keyboards and mice), USB soundcards, touch screens and the
like, all of them being plugged and unplugged at any time in any
order.

Maybe someday mdev will be able to handle all the cases that udev
does. If it does (which I honestly doubt), I'm pretty sure at that
point it would have become as complex as udev, if not more, and it
will probably need the same requirements that udev has. Including the
simple one that for mounting a filesystem, the plumbing needed to
mounting it has to be available before, and we cannot keep throwing
everything directly on / so it can mount /usr. And BTW, the split
between /bin /usr/bin has always been idiotic and it was originally an
accident: you can read the true story of the split in

http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html

But for the simple cases that Alan mentioned, the mdev solution is
perfectly fine if for some reason someone keeps refusing to use an
initramfs.

> Given time, it just may replace
> udev

I'm willing to bet a beer this will not happen.

> then the udev dev can screw up his own stuff on not bother other
> distros.

No one is forcing any part of the stack on anyone. The "other" distros
follows because it's the correct technical solution. At least I'm
convinced it is; I have yet to see some hard evidence on the contrary.

>  I'm giving mdev some thought here.  I want /usr on LVM which
> means it has to be separate.

And in this case an initramfs is the best option, so we can stop
polluting / with support for everything necessary under the sun (now
or in the future) for mounting /usr.

That's the way I see it anyhow. Doesn't stop mdev from being a beautiful hack.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:53:29 -0600
Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:

> As Alan said in other thread, it can be "fixed" (if you think is not
> right) for some very specific cases. Alan mentioned servers, really
> simple desktops with simple hotplug devices, and embedded systems. For
> mdev to "fix" the situation in the general case, it would have to
> cover all the setups udev covers. That means bluetooth devices
> (including keyboards and mice), USB soundcards, touch screens and the
> like, all of them being plugged and unplugged at any time in any
> order.
> 
> Maybe someday mdev will be able to handle all the cases that udev
> does. If it does (which I honestly doubt), I'm pretty sure at that
> point it would have become as complex as udev, if not more, and it
> will probably need the same requirements that udev has. Including the
> simple one that for mounting a filesystem, the plumbing needed to
> mounting it has to be available before, and we cannot keep throwing
> everything directly on / so it can mount /usr. 

I'm slowly coming round to this point of view too.

If you want a full blown desktop machine with all the modern bells and
whistles that always JustWorks(tm), realise that you have a complex
system needing complex software. And udev is designed to deal with
that. To accomplish this task, udev needs to apply some constraints.

For almost everything else, that sophistication is not needed and
simpler (i.e. less complex) software will suffice. Currently mdev (or
something else like it) fills that needs.

So 2 different scenarios with different solutions. Horses for courses. 

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1924 bytes --]

On Mar 13, 2012 10:39 PM, "Alan McKinnon" <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:53:29 -0600
> Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As Alan said in other thread, it can be "fixed" (if you think is not
> > right) for some very specific cases. Alan mentioned servers, really
> > simple desktops with simple hotplug devices, and embedded systems. For
> > mdev to "fix" the situation in the general case, it would have to
> > cover all the setups udev covers. That means bluetooth devices
> > (including keyboards and mice), USB soundcards, touch screens and the
> > like, all of them being plugged and unplugged at any time in any
> > order.
> >
> > Maybe someday mdev will be able to handle all the cases that udev
> > does. If it does (which I honestly doubt), I'm pretty sure at that
> > point it would have become as complex as udev, if not more, and it
> > will probably need the same requirements that udev has. Including the
> > simple one that for mounting a filesystem, the plumbing needed to
> > mounting it has to be available before, and we cannot keep throwing
> > everything directly on / so it can mount /usr.
>
> I'm slowly coming round to this point of view too.
>
> If you want a full blown desktop machine with all the modern bells and
> whistles that always JustWorks(tm), realise that you have a complex
> system needing complex software. And udev is designed to deal with
> that. To accomplish this task, udev needs to apply some constraints.
>
> For almost everything else, that sophistication is not needed and
> simpler (i.e. less complex) software will suffice. Currently mdev (or
> something else like it) fills that needs.
>
> So 2 different scenarios with different solutions. Horses for courses.
>

Fully agree.

However, currently the 'less complex' mdev solution is not yet a 'first
class citizen' anywhere.

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2392 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Mike Edenfield]

 From: Dale [mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com]
 Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 7:23 PM

> I like that quote.  I may not be dev material but I know this /usr mess
> is not right.  The only reason it is happening is because of one or two
> distros that push it to make it easier for themselves.

If that's honestly what you think then I suspect you don't understand the problem as well as you believe.

The idea of trying to launch udevd and initialize devices without the software, installed in /usr, which is required by those devices is a configuration that causes problems in many real-world, practical situations.

The requirement of having /usr on the same partition as / is also a configuration that causes problems in many real-world, practical situations.

The requirement to ensure that /usr is *somehow available* before launching udevd is a configuration that, I am told, causes problems in some specialized real-world, practical situations. (I am ignoring "problems" such as "initramd might possibly break maybe" or "that's more work than I want to do" as being the expected griping that always happens when you ask a group of geeks to change something.)

It is impossible for udev to solve the problem for all users in all configuration. Given the three readily available options, the one that makes the most sense from a software engineering standpoint is to choose option three, thus ensuring that your solution pisses off the smallest subset of users. Those users are then free to create a solution that better suits their needs, such as replacing udev with different software which made a different choice.

To call one option a "mess" that is "not right" is both an unrealistic oversimplification of a complex problem and utterly unfair to the people trying to solve that problem.

--Mike

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1496 bytes --]

On Mar 13, 2012 9:05 AM, "Mike Edenfield" <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:
>
>  From: Dale [mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com]
>  Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 7:23 PM
>
> > I like that quote.  I may not be dev material but I know this /usr mess
> > is not right.  The only reason it is happening is because of one or two
> > distros that push it to make it easier for themselves.
>
> If that's honestly what you think then I suspect you don't understand the
problem as well as you believe.
>
> The idea of trying to launch udevd and initialize devices without the
software, installed in /usr, which is required by those devices is a
configuration that causes problems in many real-world, practical situations.
>
> The requirement of having /usr on the same partition as / is also a
configuration that causes problems in many real-world, practical situations.
>

I quite often read about this, and after some thinking, I have to ask: why?

> The requirement to ensure that /usr is *somehow available* before
launching udevd is a configuration that, I am told, causes problems in some
specialized real-world, practical situations. (I am ignoring "problems"
such as "initramd might possibly break maybe" or "that's more work than I
want to do" as being the expected griping that always happens when you ask
a group of geeks to change something.)
>

When one's handling enterprise servers, "might possibly break" is a 95%
certainty of "you do that and I'll make sure to have a pink slip standing
by." :-)

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1852 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:54:58 +0700
Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:

> > The idea of trying to launch udevd and initialize devices without
> > the software, installed in /usr, which is required by those devices
> > is a configuration that causes problems in many real-world,
> > practical situations.
> >
> > The requirement of having /usr on the same partition as / is also a
> > configuration that causes problems in many real-world, practical
> > situations.
> >
> 
> I quite often read about this, and after some thinking, I have to
> ask: why?
> 

I've also thought about this and I also want to ask why?

I stopped using a separate /usr on my workstations a long time ago when
I realized it was pointless. The days of 5M hard disks when the entire
OS didn't fit on one are long gone. The days of my software going tits
up at the drop of a hat requiring a minimal repair environment to fix
it at boot are also long gone (my desk is littered with LiveCDs and
bootable flash drives).

So I can't find a single good reason why /usr *must* be separate and my
workstations are the only machines that will ever have hotplug booting
issues.

I'm even considering changing the install standards for the company
servers to dispense with separate /usr, as long as there are safeguards
against clowns who don't read INSTALL files and happily
accept /usr/local/<package>/var as a storage area.

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1816 bytes --]

On Mar 13, 2012 2:19 PM, "Alan McKinnon" <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:54:58 +0700
> Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>
> > > The idea of trying to launch udevd and initialize devices without
> > > the software, installed in /usr, which is required by those devices
> > > is a configuration that causes problems in many real-world,
> > > practical situations.
> > >
> > > The requirement of having /usr on the same partition as / is also a
> > > configuration that causes problems in many real-world, practical
> > > situations.
> > >
> >
> > I quite often read about this, and after some thinking, I have to
> > ask: why?
> >
>
> I've also thought about this and I also want to ask why?
>
> I stopped using a separate /usr on my workstations a long time ago when
> I realized it was pointless. The days of 5M hard disks when the entire
> OS didn't fit on one are long gone. The days of my software going tits
> up at the drop of a hat requiring a minimal repair environment to fix
> it at boot are also long gone (my desk is littered with LiveCDs and
> bootable flash drives).
>
> So I can't find a single good reason why /usr *must* be separate and my
> workstations are the only machines that will ever have hotplug booting
> issues.
>
> I'm even considering changing the install standards for the company
> servers to dispense with separate /usr, as long as there are safeguards
> against clowns who don't read INSTALL files and happily
> accept /usr/local/<package>/var as a storage area.
>

I just did some more thinking, and *maybe* the reason is to prevent
something under /usr (src and share comes to mind) from growing too big and
messes up the root filesystem.

Place the offenders on a separate partition, then mount them under /usr,
and all should be well...

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2341 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2012 2:19 PM, "Alan McKinnon" <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:54:58 +0700
>> Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>>
>> > > The idea of trying to launch udevd and initialize devices without
>> > > the software, installed in /usr, which is required by those devices
>> > > is a configuration that causes problems in many real-world,
>> > > practical situations.
>> > >
>> > > The requirement of having /usr on the same partition as / is also a
>> > > configuration that causes problems in many real-world, practical
>> > > situations.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I quite often read about this, and after some thinking, I have to
>> > ask: why?
>> >
>>
>> I've also thought about this and I also want to ask why?
>>
>> I stopped using a separate /usr on my workstations a long time ago when
>> I realized it was pointless. The days of 5M hard disks when the entire
>> OS didn't fit on one are long gone. The days of my software going tits
>> up at the drop of a hat requiring a minimal repair environment to fix
>> it at boot are also long gone (my desk is littered with LiveCDs and
>> bootable flash drives).
>>
>> So I can't find a single good reason why /usr *must* be separate and my
>> workstations are the only machines that will ever have hotplug booting
>> issues.
>>
>> I'm even considering changing the install standards for the company
>> servers to dispense with separate /usr, as long as there are safeguards
>> against clowns who don't read INSTALL files and happily
>> accept /usr/local/<package>/var as a storage area.
>>
>
> I just did some more thinking, and *maybe* the reason is to prevent
> something under /usr (src and share comes to mind) from growing too big and
> messes up the root filesystem.
>
> Place the offenders on a separate partition, then mount them under /usr, and
> all should be well...

The always used example is to have /usr shared as a read only NFS
partition among several workstations. In corporate environments it is
certainly used this way (or at least it was when I worked, and the way
I used it in my office seven or eight years ago).

Of course, for a normal desktop user, a separate /usr is basically useless.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2569 bytes --]

On Mar 13, 2012 2:41 PM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 13, 2012 2:19 PM, "Alan McKinnon" <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:54:58 +0700
> >> Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > The idea of trying to launch udevd and initialize devices without
> >> > > the software, installed in /usr, which is required by those devices
> >> > > is a configuration that causes problems in many real-world,
> >> > > practical situations.
> >> > >
> >> > > The requirement of having /usr on the same partition as / is also a
> >> > > configuration that causes problems in many real-world, practical
> >> > > situations.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I quite often read about this, and after some thinking, I have to
> >> > ask: why?
> >> >
> >>
> >> I've also thought about this and I also want to ask why?
> >>
> >> I stopped using a separate /usr on my workstations a long time ago when
> >> I realized it was pointless. The days of 5M hard disks when the entire
> >> OS didn't fit on one are long gone. The days of my software going tits
> >> up at the drop of a hat requiring a minimal repair environment to fix
> >> it at boot are also long gone (my desk is littered with LiveCDs and
> >> bootable flash drives).
> >>
> >> So I can't find a single good reason why /usr *must* be separate and my
> >> workstations are the only machines that will ever have hotplug booting
> >> issues.
> >>
> >> I'm even considering changing the install standards for the company
> >> servers to dispense with separate /usr, as long as there are safeguards
> >> against clowns who don't read INSTALL files and happily
> >> accept /usr/local/<package>/var as a storage area.
> >>
> >
> > I just did some more thinking, and *maybe* the reason is to prevent
> > something under /usr (src and share comes to mind) from growing too big
and
> > messes up the root filesystem.
> >
> > Place the offenders on a separate partition, then mount them under
/usr, and
> > all should be well...
>
> The always used example is to have /usr shared as a read only NFS
> partition among several workstations. In corporate environments it is
> certainly used this way (or at least it was when I worked, and the way
> I used it in my office seven or eight years ago).
>
> Of course, for a normal desktop user, a separate /usr is basically
useless.
>

Ah, thanks for the explanation. Makes sense.

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3519 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 522 bytes --]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:38:26 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> Of course, for a normal desktop user, a separate /usr is basically
> useless.

If you need to encrypt /etc but don't want the overhead of encrypting
everything is /usr, which is basically publicly available files anyway,
separating / and /usr makes sense. Compiling a kernel already takes long
enough on a lower powered machine, encrypting /usr/src only makes it
worse.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

C:\BELFRY is where I keep my .BAT files ^^^oo^^^

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[pk]

On 2012-03-13 08:13, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> I've also thought about this and I also want to ask why?

Hm... me too? :-)

> I stopped using a separate /usr on my workstations a long time ago when
> I realized it was pointless. The days of 5M hard disks when the entire

Ok, you realized it was pointless for *you*, right? It's not a universal
fact, as far as I can see... Recall the previous discussion about this
very same subject, where I compared unix to "lego"? Flexibility is the
keyword here, I think, that some of us do not want to forego. For
instance I can very well see myself indulging in some SSDs that I could
put in my 'puter where one is dedicated for /usr, one for /var and one
for the root file system, whereas I would keep a big normal HDD for /home...

In my opinion there's a lot of "hand waving" that basically says
something like "on a modern desktop system, complex software is needed,
therefore /usr needs to be on the root file system (or mounted via
initrd)"... and states this as a universal fact, without answering the
question "Why?". Isn't it those who wants to change that should answer
why they want to change? And I trust Poetterings/Sievers answer why it
needs to change as far as I can throw either of them (I'm quite weak)...
it's all tied in neatly into their (IMO) overly complex software.

Hm, if we want to be modern, perhaps we should abolish partitions
altogether and put everything in the cloud? That would be "modern",
right? ;-)

I'm running a decent desktop system (Xfce4) and I have /usr on a
separate partition without any initrd... Why would I need to change this
(except from being forced if I continue to use udev)? So far the only
technical reason I've heard that somehow requires udev to have access to
files in /usr is a bluetooth keyboard. Anything else that *needs* to be
working during boot (before a separate /usr can be mounted)? And in my
opinion, if a keyboard needs complex software to work then it's broken
by design.

But I digress, I really should start coding my own solutions, as Canek
says...

Best regards

Peter K

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Mike Edenfield]

> From: Alan McKinnon [mailto:alan.mckinnon@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:14 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
> 
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:54:58 +0700
> Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
> 
> > > The idea of trying to launch udevd and initialize devices without
> > > the software, installed in /usr, which is required by those devices
> > > is a configuration that causes problems in many real-world,
> > > practical situations.
> > >
> > > The requirement of having /usr on the same partition as / is also a
> > > configuration that causes problems in many real-world, practical
> > > situations.
> > >
> >
> > I quite often read about this, and after some thinking, I have to
> > ask: why?
> >
> 
> I've also thought about this and I also want to ask why?

To be honest, I was simply taking for granted that all of the other people
on this list who made a huge fuss about this were not lying.

I, personally, have never had a use or need for a separate /usr; I know how
big (approximately) /usr is going to get and I give it that much space. I
guess I'm fortunate not to have ever managed a server where the hard drives
were so  tiny as to make that impractical.

This whole udev/initrd/mdev/etc problem, for me, has been little more than
an entertaining diversion, since I've been using a supported setup from the
start. However, I'm confident that there are legitimate reasons why some
sysadmins use certain configurations which require / and /usr to be
different partitions; I'm less confident that initrd is not the real
solution to their "problem" but that's not really my call to make.

I'm *very* confident that a dismissal of this issue as "the ego if one or
two guys who happen to write udev" is a blatant oversimplification that does
not do justice to the complexities involved in making modern hardware work.

--Mike

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2407 bytes --]

On Mar 14, 2012 11:19 PM, "Mike Edenfield" <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Alan McKinnon [mailto:alan.mckinnon@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:14 AM
> > To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> > Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:54:58 +0700
> > Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
> >
> > > > The idea of trying to launch udevd and initialize devices without
> > > > the software, installed in /usr, which is required by those devices
> > > > is a configuration that causes problems in many real-world,
> > > > practical situations.
> > > >
> > > > The requirement of having /usr on the same partition as / is also a
> > > > configuration that causes problems in many real-world, practical
> > > > situations.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I quite often read about this, and after some thinking, I have to
> > > ask: why?
> > >
> >
> > I've also thought about this and I also want to ask why?
>
> To be honest, I was simply taking for granted that all of the other people
> on this list who made a huge fuss about this were not lying.
>
> I, personally, have never had a use or need for a separate /usr; I know
how
> big (approximately) /usr is going to get and I give it that much space. I
> guess I'm fortunate not to have ever managed a server where the hard
drives
> were so  tiny as to make that impractical.
>
> This whole udev/initrd/mdev/etc problem, for me, has been little more than
> an entertaining diversion, since I've been using a supported setup from
the
> start. However, I'm confident that there are legitimate reasons why some
> sysadmins use certain configurations which require / and /usr to be
> different partitions; I'm less confident that initrd is not the real
> solution to their "problem" but that's not really my call to make.
>
> I'm *very* confident that a dismissal of this issue as "the ego if one or
> two guys who happen to write udev" is a blatant oversimplification that
does
> not do justice to the complexities involved in making modern hardware
work.
>

This email [1] (and the correction email right afterwards) should give some
much-needed perspective on why we're driving full-speed toward an
overturned manure truck (which some of us, e.g., Walter and me, are
desperately pulling at the handbrakes).

[1] http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2011-September/076713.html

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3269 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Mike Edenfield]

From: Pandu Poluan [mailto:pandu@poluan.info] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:28 PM

> This email [1] (and the correction email right afterwards) should give some much-needed perspective on 
> why we're driving full-speed toward an overturned manure truck (which some of us, e.g., Walter and me,
> are desperately pulling at the handbrakes).

>[1] http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2011-September/076713.html

Actually, that email lost me in the second sentence (though I kept reading):

> It is incredibly biased
> towards huge desktop systems and behemoth software

Every machine I run Linux on is a huge desktop system running behemoth software (Eclipse, GNOME, Chromium, LibreOffice, etc.). That's why it's called a "free desktop system". The author of this email is clearly baised *against* desktop systems running desktop environments, as well as any other "highly dynamic" system that doesn't fit the model of a simple server running Linux the way it ran 10 years ago. He seems to be  producing a rather vitriolic, and IMO uncalled-for, rant against the simple fact that computers do more stuff in 2012 than they did in 1972 and the udev developers are changing with the times.

The reality is, the majority of people running Linux desktop systems using big software packages want a desktop system that works out of the box so they can just turn it on and get their work done. That is the audience that udev is targeted for, and it is doing a perfectly good job at meeting the needs of that audience. The fact that the largest major distributions are currently using udev (with an initrd) successfully is all the proof you need that it actually does work.

The people who want or need a more specialized solution to this same problem (dynamic device management), are generally also smart enough to avoid using udev if they so choose. Again, the fact that, with merely a few months of effort, a handful of users on this list have produced exactly such a solution is all the proof I need that such a solution is possible. I also know that I have no reason to use their solution because the one I'm using now works just fine for me. 

As to the email itself, I see two major technical flaws in the argument as presented:

First, the fundamental argument being made is that /usr should be allowed to remain a separate partition, and that the "misinformed" and/or "dishonest" and or "[lacking in] good engineering practices" systemd team somehow wants to force everyone to put /usr and / together. Except that's *absolutely not at all what they are proposing*. Their proposal is precisely this: "the /usr partition contains binaries that are needed on many modern desktop systems to properly populate the device tree, and thus, the /usr partition must be available early enough in the boot process for that to happen, and thus, we can move forward with our software (udev) with the assumption that /usr will be available when we need it."

Second, the idea that the entire collective Fedora/Debian/etc teams somehow made "a mistake" by "install[ing] critical software into /usr". This argument falls flat when the author fails to identify what he or she considers to be critical vs. non-critical software. Is bluetoothd critical? On my laptop it is not. On my main development workstation it is not. On my wife's desktop it is because she has a Bluetooth keyboard/mouse combination. Should bluetoothd be moved from /usr/sbin to /sbin? Along with libglib and libdbus, which it depends on? How about usbmuxd, or alsactl?

You could also argue, as some here have done, that these are not truly "critical" software because those are not "critical" devices; but now, you must teach udev to know the difference between "device that can be added pre-mount" and "device that must wait until post-mount" on a per-device-per-system-per-boot basis, since that designation may change at any time. And recognize the difference between "device that failed because something went horribly wrong and I should drop into rescue mode" vs "device that failed because I tried too early and just need to try again later." And provide a way for udev to create the devices it can, pause while the rest of the filesystems come up, detect that the rest of the filesystems are present, then go back and re-do the devices that failed originally. All the while knowing that the solution of "just make /usr available" is such an easy and reasonable answer 99% of the time. I know which option I'd pick to spend my limited time and resources on.

There's no need to get mean-spirited about it. You are not "pulling at the hand-brakes" of an out-of-control "manure truck". You are producing one of many possible /perfectly valid/ alternative solutions to a complex problem, one which meets your needs but does not meet mine, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Walter Dnes]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 06:15:03PM -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote

> Every machine I run Linux on is a huge desktop system running behemoth
> software (Eclipse, GNOME, Chromium, LibreOffice, etc.).

  I have Abiword, Gimp, Gnumeric, Firefox, etc, running just fine, thank
you, on ICEWM.

> He seems to be  producing a rather vitriolic, and IMO uncalled-for,
> rant against the simple fact that computers do more stuff in 2012 than
> they did in 1972 and the udev developers are changing with the times.

> This argument falls flat when the author fails to identify what
> he or she considers to be critical vs. non-critical software. Is
> bluetoothd critical? On my laptop it is not. On my main development
> workstation it is not. On my wife's desktop it is because she has
> a Bluetooth keyboard/mouse combination. Should bluetoothd be moved
> from /usr/sbin to /sbin? Along with libglib and libdbus, which it
> depends on? How about usbmuxd, or alsactl?

  *YOUR WIFE'S LAPTOP* won't boot properly without /usr on /, or an
initramfs.  OK, put /usr on /, or an initramfs *ON YOUR WIFE'S LAPTOP*.
I don't have a problem with that.  What gets people really upset is the
dog-in-the-manger attitude of "if my complex/corner-case machine won't
boot up without /usr on /, or an initramfs, then by golly *NOBODY'S*
machine will be allowed to boot up without /usr on /, or an initramfs".
My machine does not use bluetooth/other-weird-stuff.  udev doesn't need
to find bluetooth drivers on /usr on my machine.  Why is udev being
deliberately broken to not work on *EVERYBODY'S* machine if they don't
have /usr on /, or an initramfs?

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 06:15:03PM -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote
> 
>> Every machine I run Linux on is a huge desktop system running behemoth
>> software (Eclipse, GNOME, Chromium, LibreOffice, etc.).
> 
>   I have Abiword, Gimp, Gnumeric, Firefox, etc, running just fine, thank
> you, on ICEWM.
> 
>> He seems to be  producing a rather vitriolic, and IMO uncalled-for,
>> rant against the simple fact that computers do more stuff in 2012 than
>> they did in 1972 and the udev developers are changing with the times.
> 
>> This argument falls flat when the author fails to identify what
>> he or she considers to be critical vs. non-critical software. Is
>> bluetoothd critical? On my laptop it is not. On my main development
>> workstation it is not. On my wife's desktop it is because she has
>> a Bluetooth keyboard/mouse combination. Should bluetoothd be moved
>> from /usr/sbin to /sbin? Along with libglib and libdbus, which it
>> depends on? How about usbmuxd, or alsactl?
> 
>   *YOUR WIFE'S LAPTOP* won't boot properly without /usr on /, or an
> initramfs.  OK, put /usr on /, or an initramfs *ON YOUR WIFE'S LAPTOP*.
> I don't have a problem with that.  What gets people really upset is the
> dog-in-the-manger attitude of "if my complex/corner-case machine won't
> boot up without /usr on /, or an initramfs, then by golly *NOBODY'S*
> machine will be allowed to boot up without /usr on /, or an initramfs".
> My machine does not use bluetooth/other-weird-stuff.  udev doesn't need
> to find bluetooth drivers on /usr on my machine.  Why is udev being
> deliberately broken to not work on *EVERYBODY'S* machine if they don't
> have /usr on /, or an initramfs?
> 


This has been one of my points too.  I could go out and buy me a
bluetooth mouse/keyboard but I don't because it to complicates matters.
 Does my BIOS see these devices so that I can access BIOS, you know,
press del to enter setup.  I have a desktop computer but I use PS/2
connections.  Why?  It always works even with the BIOS and grub.  I
might also add, if my keyboard gets further away than my keyboard cable,
I can't exactly use the computer since I can't see the monitor any more,
not and read anything anyway.

I may end up with a init thingy, which I am currently using.  Thing is,
the first time it breaks and I can't fix it, I'll install something
else.  I chose Gentoo because I could build a system that has a SIMPLE
boot process.  Turn on power, BIOS does it's thing, grub loads and I
make a selection, kernel loads, init starts.  Now, I have one more item
that has broken for me before when I had a initfs based distro.  If I
have to have a init thingy, why use Gentoo?  It was one reason I left
Mandrake and chose Gentoo.  Actually, it was a HUGE reason.  I don't
want to count the number of times I would try to boot my system and the
init thingy fail to work.  Thing is, it is MUCH easier and faster to
install Kubuntu than it is Gentoo and Kubuntu takes care of the init
thingy itself.  If it breaks, just reinstall.  Reinstalling Gentoo takes
way to long for that to be a option.

Back to my hole.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 476 bytes --]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:47:16 -0500, Dale wrote:

> I may end up with a init thingy, which I am currently using.  Thing is,
> the first time it breaks and I can't fix it, I'll install something
> else.

That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a separate
file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the previous
kernel knowing it will still work.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Use Colgate toothpaste or end up with teeth like a Ferengi.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:47:16 -0500, Dale wrote:
> 
>> I may end up with a init thingy, which I am currently using.  Thing is,
>> the first time it breaks and I can't fix it, I'll install something
>> else.
> 
> That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a separate
> file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the previous
> kernel knowing it will still work.
> 
> 


I tried that.  It broke.  It didn't boot not even once.  Google was no
help either tho I found others with the same issues but no fix.  Right
now I am using the dracut thingy.  If it breaks, I have no idea how to
fix it.  That's one reason why I left Mandrake, the init thingy kept
breaking every few months.  Then after one upgrade, I was just fed up.
I moved on.

Keep in mind, this is Dale, the one that has issues with things.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 961 bytes --]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:10:55 -0500, Dale wrote:

> > That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a separate
> > file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the
> > previous kernel knowing it will still work.

> I tried that.  It broke.  It didn't boot not even once.  Google was no
> help either tho I found others with the same issues but no fix.  Right
> now I am using the dracut thingy.  If it breaks, I have no idea how to
> fix it.  That's one reason why I left Mandrake, the init thingy kept
> breaking every few months.  Then after one upgrade, I was just fed up.
> I moved on.

If you're writing your own init, it's bound to fail at first. Just fill
it full of echo statements and keep trying. It probably takes longer than
dracut, but you end up with something that not only does what you want,
but in a way you understand.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Tanstaafl]

On 2012-03-15 5:13 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a separate
> file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the previous
> kernel knowing it will still work.

Ok, time to show my ignorance...

How would I know if I am using an initramfs, and if I was, whether it 
was built into the kernel or not?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 824 bytes --]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:41:38 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> > That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a separate
> > file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the
> > previous kernel knowing it will still work.  
> 
> Ok, time to show my ignorance...
> 
> How would I know if I am using an initramfs, and if I was, whether it 
> was built into the kernel or not?

Well, you built the kernel, so you should know.

Technically, we are all using an initramfs as all 2.6/3 kernels mount an
initramfs when they load. If does not contain an init script, they fall
back to the legacy behaviour.

See /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/ramfs-rootfs-initramfs.txt


-- 
Neil Bothwick

It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning
to others.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Tanstaafl]

On 2012-03-15 9:05 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:41:38 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>>> That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a separate
>>> file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the
>>> previous kernel knowing it will still work.
>>
>> Ok, time to show my ignorance...
>>
>> How would I know if I am using an initramfs, and if I was, whether it
>> was built into the kernel or not?

> Well, you built the kernel, so you should know.

Well, since I basically just used a kernel .config that someone else 
originally set up, copying .config over and running make oldconfig when 
upgrading over the years, stumbling through any changes that broke 
anything (like when some changes to iptables broke my firewall back 
around 2.6.2x), I really didn't know - but I just confirmed that it is 
indeed built into my kernels, so, now, how do I know if I am *using* it 
or not?

> Technically, we are all using an initramfs as all 2.6/3 kernels mount an
> initramfs when they load. If does not contain an init script, they fall
> back to the legacy behaviour.

So, how do I know whether or not 'it contains an init script'?

I know, my ignorance is confounding...

> See /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/ramfs-rootfs-initramfs.txt

Read it, thanks, but it didn't help me answer the above...

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 819 bytes --]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:56:12 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> > Well, you built the kernel, so you should know.
> 
> Well, since I basically just used a kernel .config that someone else 
> originally set up, copying .config over and running make oldconfig when 
> upgrading over the years, stumbling through any changes that broke 
> anything (like when some changes to iptables broke my firewall back 
> around 2.6.2x), I really didn't know - but I just confirmed that it is 
> indeed built into my kernels, so, now, how do I know if I am *using* it 
> or not?

If CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE contains a path, that is the initramfs you are
using. If it is empty and there is no initrd set in GRUB, you are not
using one.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

New Intel opcode #007 PUKE: Put unmeaningful keywords everywhere

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Mark Knecht]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> On 2012-03-15 9:05 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:41:38 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>>>> That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a separate
>>>> file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the
>>>> previous kernel knowing it will still work.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, time to show my ignorance...
>>>
>>> How would I know if I am using an initramfs, and if I was, whether it
>>> was built into the kernel or not?
>
>
>> Well, you built the kernel, so you should know.
>
>
> Well, since I basically just used a kernel .config that someone else
> originally set up, copying .config over and running make oldconfig when
> upgrading over the years, stumbling through any changes that broke anything
> (like when some changes to iptables broke my firewall back around 2.6.2x), I
> really didn't know - but I just confirmed that it is indeed built into my
> kernels, so, now, how do I know if I am *using* it or not?
>
>
>> Technically, we are all using an initramfs as all 2.6/3 kernels mount an
>> initramfs when they load. If does not contain an init script, they fall
>> back to the legacy behaviour.
>
>
> So, how do I know whether or not 'it contains an init script'?
>
> I know, my ignorance is confounding...
>
>> See /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/ramfs-rootfs-initramfs.txt
>
>
> Read it, thanks, but it didn't help me answer the above...
>

I've only used an initramfs/initrd once so I can relate to the
confusion. Assuming you have the config in /proc run:

c2stable ~ # zcat /proc/config.gz | grep INITRAMFS
CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE=""
c2stable ~ #

Also, if you didn't actually create the initramfs hierarchy and zip it
up to be used by your kernel then you're not using one, other than
what Neil said that we all use one that does nothing.

HTH,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Thursday, March 15, 2012 01:05:12 PM Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:41:38 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > > That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a
> > > separate
> > > file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the
> > > previous kernel knowing it will still work.
> > 
> > Ok, time to show my ignorance...
> > 
> > How would I know if I am using an initramfs, and if I was, whether it
> > was built into the kernel or not?
> 
> Well, you built the kernel, so you should know.
> 
> Technically, we are all using an initramfs as all 2.6/3 kernels mount an
> initramfs when they load. If does not contain an init script, they fall
> back to the legacy behaviour.
> 
> See /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/ramfs-rootfs-initramfs.txt

Even when the init-options are not set?

***
admin@hera ~ $ uname -a
Linux hera 2.6.34-xen-r4_dom0 #1 SMP Wed Dec 8 15:52:31 CET 2010 x86_64 AMD 
Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux

admin@hera ~ $ zcat /proc/config.gz | grep -i init
CONFIG_INIT_ENV_ARG_LIMIT=32
# CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD is not set
# CONFIG_SCSI_OSD_INITIATOR is not set
CONFIG_DEBUG_MEMORY_INIT=y
# CONFIG_PROVIDE_OHCI1394_DMA_INIT is not set
***

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 629 bytes --]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:39:44 +0100, Joost Roeleveld wrote:

> > Technically, we are all using an initramfs as all 2.6/3 kernels mount
> > an initramfs when they load. If does not contain an init script, they
> > fall back to the legacy behaviour.
> > 
> > See /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/ramfs-rootfs-initramfs.txt  
> 
> Even when the init-options are not set?

Yes, read the readme.
 
> admin@hera ~ $ zcat /proc/config.gz | grep -i init
> # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD is not set

That's for an old style initrd, I don't have that set either.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Oxymoron: Clearly Misunderstood.

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

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Mike Edenfield]

> From: Dale [mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com]

> This has been one of my points too.  I could go out and buy me a bluetooth
> mouse/keyboard but I don't because it to complicates matters.

I had a long reply to Walt that I (probably wisely) decided not to send, but
the basic point of it is also relevant here. My response to his (IMO
needlessly aggressive) email was basically this:

Why *shouldn't I* be able to go but a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse if I
wanted to? Those things *work perfectly fine with udev*. And why wouldn't I
want to use the *same* solution for all of my various machines, even if that
solution is "overkill" for half of them? Just because my laptop doesn't need
bluetoothd support in udev doesn't mean using udev there *is bad*. (I don't
need 80% of what's in the Linux kernel but I still install one...)

I am not in any way denigrating the work he's doing. I think it's awesome
and I've tried to help where I can. But I'm pretty fed up with people like
him acting as if the current udev solution is the end of the world. I've
heard it called everything from "design mistake" to "out of control truck
full of manure".

I have three PCs in my home running Gentoo. Two of them would boot correctly
using Walt's new solution (mdev and no /usr mounted at boot) and one would
not. *All three of them* boot correctly using udev. 100% success > 66%
success, so clearly the udev solution is a perfectly legitimate solution to
a real world problem. At work, those numbers are likely different, and
Walt's solution might be a working approach -- if udev didn't already work
fine in 100% of those cases, too.

Instead of asking why everyone else should be "forced" to use the udev
solution *that already works*, you should be focusing on explaining to
everyone else the reasons why it is worth the time and effort to configure
*something different* for those same machines. There was a reason why people
stopped using static /dev, and devfs; maybe there is a reason why people
should stop using udev, but thus far that reason seems to be "initramfs
makes us cranky."

There's no need to get mean-spirited just because you choose a different
audience that freedesktop.org as the target for your solution. It just makes
you look petty and childish. Produce an alternative to
"udev/initramfs/single root" that works, provide (accurate) details on the
differences, and let users pick which one they want.

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Michael Mol]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:
>> From: Dale [mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com]
>
>> This has been one of my points too.  I could go out and buy me a bluetooth
>> mouse/keyboard but I don't because it to complicates matters.
>
> I had a long reply to Walt that I (probably wisely) decided not to send, but
> the basic point of it is also relevant here. My response to his (IMO
> needlessly aggressive) email was basically this:
>
> Why *shouldn't I* be able to go but a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse if I
> wanted to? Those things *work perfectly fine with udev*. And why wouldn't I
> want to use the *same* solution for all of my various machines, even if that
> solution is "overkill" for half of them? Just because my laptop doesn't need
> bluetoothd support in udev doesn't mean using udev there *is bad*. (I don't
> need 80% of what's in the Linux kernel but I still install one...)

I wouldn't say you shouldn't be able to. (Outside that I think
Bluetooth is a pile of smelly carp, people shouldn't have to bend over
backwards to support, but that's a different issue...)

>
> I am not in any way denigrating the work he's doing. I think it's awesome
> and I've tried to help where I can. But I'm pretty fed up with people like
> him acting as if the current udev solution is the end of the world. I've
> heard it called everything from "design mistake" to "out of control truck
> full of manure".

"design mistake" is a perfectly reasonable description, and I'd agree
with that. It's also not pejorative, but I'd say the two vocal sides
of the issue are far too polarized to notice that. "truck full of
manure" is probably a bit far, but that description only holds if
important things which shouldn't need a dependency on udev gain or
keep them. Rather like how installing a console Qt app on a Debian
server pulls in X.

>
> I have three PCs in my home running Gentoo. Two of them would boot correctly
> using Walt's new solution (mdev and no /usr mounted at boot) and one would
> not. *All three of them* boot correctly using udev. 100% success > 66%
> success, so clearly the udev solution is a perfectly legitimate solution to
> a real world problem. At work, those numbers are likely different, and
> Walt's solution might be a working approach -- if udev didn't already work
> fine in 100% of those cases, too.

Sure.

>
> Instead of asking why everyone else should be "forced" to use the udev
> solution *that already works*, you should be focusing on explaining to
> everyone else the reasons why it is worth the time and effort to configure
> *something different* for those same machines.

There's little use in explaining to someone why they should use
something apart from what they're comfortable with. Moving out of a
comfort zone requires personal motivation, not external. If udev works
for someone, they should use it. If they discover udev is getting in
their way, then they should look for alternatives.

I use apache2+squid3 on my server, despite hordes of people telling me
I should use nginx. Apache+squid works appropriately well for my
circumstance.

>  There was a reason why people
> stopped using static /dev, and devfs; maybe there is a reason why people
> should stop using udev, but thus far that reason seems to be "initramfs
> makes us cranky."

*That* is a matter of systemic complexity and maintenance difficulty;
the increased complexity tickles the spider senses of anyone who's had
to design, develop or maintain very complex systems with few
leave-alone black boxes. It's very difficult to increase the
complexity of a system without adding bugs or mistakes anywhere from
code to testing procedures to package management to end-user
maintenance. So when a system starts becoming more complex, and I'm
told that I'm going to have to go along for the ride, I get concerned.
Before Walt started pulling mdev from being a busybox-only component,
that was exactly the scenario. (Thank you, Walt!)

The only cases I've ever conceivably needed to use an initramfs have
been where I needed a kernel module available early. Rather than build
that as a module and build an initramfs, I simply build it into the
kernel. Certainly, there are portions of the kernel (particularly some
sound cards) where that doesn't work, and if someone needs those
portions available early, then an initramfs is going to be the tool
for them.

>
> There's no need to get mean-spirited just because you choose a different
> audience that freedesktop.org as the target for your solution.

That's really not the reason for it. I mean, sure, I think the initial
reactions were mostly grumpiness and misinformed outrage, but I don't
think the contrariness really *baked* in until people got a twofer of
"you're going to use udev unless you write the code to get around it"
and "oh, you're writing the code? You're wasting your time and you're
going to fail." That, I think, is when the real malaise set in.

> It just makes
> you look petty and childish. Produce an alternative to
> "udev/initramfs/single root" that works, provide (accurate) details on the
> differences, and let users pick which one they want.

I concur.

For my part, I expect I'll use mdev in some circumstances, udev in
others. Right tool for the right job, and all that.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 824 bytes --]

On Mar 15, 2012 9:50 PM, "Michael Mol" <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>
---- >8 snip

>
> That's really not the reason for it. I mean, sure, I think the initial
> reactions were mostly grumpiness and misinformed outrage, but I don't
> think the contrariness really *baked* in until people got a twofer of
> "you're going to use udev unless you write the code to get around it"
> and "oh, you're writing the code? You're wasting your time and you're
> going to fail." That, I think, is when the real malaise set in.
>

This.

On hindsight, I do admit that after I woke up this morning, my emails are
perhaps too vitriolic. Blame it on a late night posting *just* before I go
to bed ;-)

But still, my emails indeed captured my emotions at the moment.

It's 23:38 here, and I'll quickly bow out if this thread, for now :-)

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1053 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Mike Edenfield wrote:
>> From: Dale [mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com]
> 
>> This has been one of my points too.  I could go out and buy me a bluetooth
>> mouse/keyboard but I don't because it to complicates matters.
> 
> I had a long reply to Walt that I (probably wisely) decided not to send, but
> the basic point of it is also relevant here. My response to his (IMO
> needlessly aggressive) email was basically this:
> 
> Why *shouldn't I* be able to go but a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse if I
> wanted to? Those things *work perfectly fine with udev*. And why wouldn't I
> want to use the *same* solution for all of my various machines, even if that
> solution is "overkill" for half of them? Just because my laptop doesn't need
> bluetoothd support in udev doesn't mean using udev there *is bad*. (I don't
> need 80% of what's in the Linux kernel but I still install one...)
> 
> I am not in any way denigrating the work he's doing. I think it's awesome
> and I've tried to help where I can. But I'm pretty fed up with people like
> him acting as if the current udev solution is the end of the world. I've
> heard it called everything from "design mistake" to "out of control truck
> full of manure".
> 
> I have three PCs in my home running Gentoo. Two of them would boot correctly
> using Walt's new solution (mdev and no /usr mounted at boot) and one would
> not. *All three of them* boot correctly using udev. 100% success > 66%
> success, so clearly the udev solution is a perfectly legitimate solution to
> a real world problem. At work, those numbers are likely different, and
> Walt's solution might be a working approach -- if udev didn't already work
> fine in 100% of those cases, too.
> 
> Instead of asking why everyone else should be "forced" to use the udev
> solution *that already works*, you should be focusing on explaining to
> everyone else the reasons why it is worth the time and effort to configure
> *something different* for those same machines. There was a reason why people
> stopped using static /dev, and devfs; maybe there is a reason why people
> should stop using udev, but thus far that reason seems to be "initramfs
> makes us cranky."
> 
> There's no need to get mean-spirited just because you choose a different
> audience that freedesktop.org as the target for your solution. It just makes
> you look petty and childish. Produce an alternative to
> "udev/initramfs/single root" that works, provide (accurate) details on the
> differences, and let users pick which one they want.
> 
> --Mike
> 
> 
> 


I have a question or two.  If udev was going to *break* your bluetooth
keyboard, what would you say then?  To me, having a bluetooth keyboard
is a bit out there.  If udev was going to break a PS/2 keyboard, what
would you say then?  I suspect PS/2 keyboards outnumber bluetooth and
most likely by a wide margin.

Right now, udev is going to ruin my system while yours works.  What if
it was going to make my system work while breaking yours?  Would you
make the same argument?

One other question, does your BIOS allow you to use your bluetooth
keyboard?

Just a thought.  I'm going to take my meds.  Ya'll argue for a while.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Tanstaafl]

On 2012-03-14 9:03 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> *YOUR WIFE'S LAPTOP*  won't boot properly without /usr on /, or an
> initramfs.  OK, put /usr on /, or an initramfs*ON YOUR WIFE'S LAPTOP*.
> I don't have a problem with that.  What gets people really upset is the
> dog-in-the-manger attitude of "if my complex/corner-case machine won't
> boot up without /usr on /, or an initramfs, then by golly*NOBODY'S*
> machine will be allowed to boot up without /usr on /, or an initramfs".
> My machine does not use bluetooth/other-weird-stuff.  udev doesn't need
> to find bluetooth drivers on /usr on my machine.  Why is udev being
> deliberately broken to not work on*EVERYBODY'S*  machine if they don't
> have /usr on /, or an initramfs?

Why can't this argument simply be satisfied with one or more new profiles?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:22:39PM -0500, Dale wrote

> I think mdev has shown it can be fixed.  Given time, it just may replace
> udev then the udev dev can screw up his own stuff on not bother other
> distros.  I'm giving mdev some thought here.  I want /usr on LVM which
> means it has to be separate.

  Sorry, in lste-breaking news, it looks like udev is a mandatory
dependancy for lvm2.  No udev ==> No lvm2

  Can you run a test for me?  What happens when you...

1) insert the line
sys-fs/udev
into /etc/portage/package.mask

2) execute "emerge -pv system"

3) execute "emerge -pv world"

4) Remember to remove the "sys-fs/udev" line from package.mask<G>

  I expect that you should get an error message about not being able to
emerge lvm2 due to udev being masked.  This is something I intend to add
to the instructions, so people can check ahead of time whether their
particular setup is able to run without udev.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:22:39PM -0500, Dale wrote
>
>> I think mdev has shown it can be fixed.  Given time, it just may replace
>> udev then the udev dev can screw up his own stuff on not bother other
>> distros.  I'm giving mdev some thought here.  I want /usr on LVM which
>> means it has to be separate.
>
>  Sorry, in lste-breaking news, it looks like udev is a mandatory
> dependancy for lvm2.  No udev ==> No lvm2

It seems so; from lvm2 2.02.93:

DEPEND_COMMON="!!sys-fs/device-mapper
        readline? ( sys-libs/readline )
        clvm? ( =sys-cluster/dlm-2*
                        cman? ( =sys-cluster/cman-2* ) )
        >=sys-fs/udev-151-r4"

...

        econf $(use_enable readline) \
                $(use_enable selinux) \
                --enable-pkgconfig \
                --with-confdir="${EPREFIX}/etc" \
                --sbindir="${EPREFIX}/sbin" \
                --with-staticdir="${EPREFIX}/sbin" \
                --libdir="${EPREFIX}/$(get_libdir)" \
                --with-usrlibdir="${EPREFIX}/usr/$(get_libdir)" \
                --enable-udev_rules \
                --enable-udev_sync \
                --with-udevdir="${EPREFIX}/lib/udev/rules.d/" \
                ${myconf} \
                CLDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS}" || die

Maybe you could try to modify the LVM ebuild to point udevdir to a
black hole and disable udev_rules and udev_sync. But that would be at
best a hack; I'm not familiar enough with the LVM code to know if they
actually need udev to run, or it only installs some rules so it can
run better with it.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:22:39PM -0500, Dale wrote
> 
>> I think mdev has shown it can be fixed.  Given time, it just may replace
>> udev then the udev dev can screw up his own stuff on not bother other
>> distros.  I'm giving mdev some thought here.  I want /usr on LVM which
>> means it has to be separate.
> 
>   Sorry, in lste-breaking news, it looks like udev is a mandatory
> dependancy for lvm2.  No udev ==> No lvm2
> 
>   Can you run a test for me?  What happens when you...
> 
> 1) insert the line
> sys-fs/udev
> into /etc/portage/package.mask
> 
> 2) execute "emerge -pv system"
> 
> 3) execute "emerge -pv world"
> 
> 4) Remember to remove the "sys-fs/udev" line from package.mask<G>
> 
>   I expect that you should get an error message about not being able to
> emerge lvm2 due to udev being masked.  This is something I intend to add
> to the instructions, so people can check ahead of time whether their
> particular setup is able to run without udev.
> 


OK.  I took my meds a bit ago so I hope I got this right.  I used copy
and paste.  lol  I added udev to the mask file and here is the results.
 It's a doozy.

root@fireball / # emerge -pv system

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild   R    ] app-arch/xz-utils-5.0.3  USE="nls threads -static-libs"
0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/gnuconfig-20110814  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/patch-2.6.1  USE="-static -test" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-arch/bzip2-1.0.6-r3  USE="-static -static-libs" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/which-2.20  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/texinfo-4.13  USE="nls -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/os-headers-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/man-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/sed-4.2.1  USE="nls -acl (-selinux) -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/less-444  USE="unicode" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/grep-2.9  USE="nls pcre" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/kbd-1.15.3  USE="nls" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/busybox-1.19.3-r1  USE="ipv6 pam
-make-symlinks -mdev -savedconfig (-selinux) -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-shells/bash-4.1_p9  USE="net nls -afs -bashlogger
-examples -mem-scramble -plugins -vanilla" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/net-tools-1.60_p20110409135728  USE="nls
-static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/modutils-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/gawk-3.1.8  USE="nls" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-process/psmisc-22.14  USE="X ipv6 nls (-selinux)" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/file-5.09  USE="zlib -python -static-libs" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-arch/tar-1.26  USE="nls -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/package-manager-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-misc/rsync-3.0.9  USE="iconv ipv6 -acl -static
-xattr" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/editor-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/coreutils-8.14  USE="nls unicode -acl -caps
-gmp (-selinux) -static -vanilla -xattr" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/make-3.82-r1  USE="nls -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-process/procps-3.2.8_p11  USE="unicode" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/ssh-0  USE="-minimal" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/dev-manager-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/findutils-4.4.2-r1  USE="nls (-selinux)
-static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-arch/gzip-1.4  USE="nls -pic -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-misc/wget-1.12-r3  USE="ipv6 nls ssl -debug -idn
-ntlm -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/diffutils-3.0  USE="nls -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3  USE="-build" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/libc-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/util-linux-2.20.1-r1  USE="cramfs loop-aes
ncurses nls unicode -crypt -ddate -old-linux -perl (-selinux) -slang
-static-libs (-uclibc)" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/binutils-2.21.1-r1  USE="nls zlib -multislot
-multitarget -static-libs -test -vanilla" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/man-pages-3.35  USE="nls" LINGUAS="-da -de -fr
-it -ja -nl -pl -ro -ru -zh_CN" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-misc/iputils-20101006-r2  USE="ipv6 ssl
-SECURITY_HAZARD -doc -idn -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/pager-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/shadow-4.1.4.3  USE="cracklib nls pam -audit
(-selinux) -skey" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.42  USE="nls -static-libs" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/gcc-4.5.3-r2  USE="cxx fortran gtk mudflap
(multilib) nls nptl openmp (-altivec) -bootstrap -build -doc
(-fixed-point) -gcj -graphite (-hardened) (-libssp) -lto -multislot
-nocxx -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test -vanilla" 0 kB

Total: 42 packages (42 reinstalls), Size of downloads: 0 kB

!!! The following installed packages are masked:
- sys-fs/udev-171-r5::gentoo (masked by: package.mask)
For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge
man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.

root@fireball / # emerge -pv world

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild   R    ] app-arch/xz-utils-5.0.3  USE="nls threads -static-libs"
0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/gnuconfig-20110814  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-arch/bzip2-1.0.6-r3  USE="-static -static-libs" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/patch-2.6.1  USE="-static -test" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/which-2.20  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/pciutils-3.1.7  USE="-network-cron -zlib" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-admin/showconsole-1.08  21 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-fs/reiserfsprogs-3.6.21-r1  414 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/dcfldd-1.3.4.1  160 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-misc/dhcpcd-5.2.12  USE="zeroconf" 71 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-process/lsof-4.83  USE="(-selinux) -static" 736 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/rename-1.3  82 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/memtester-4.2.2  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-fs/dosfstools-3.0.9  68 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-boot/grub-static-0.97-r10  869 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/dmidecode-2.10  51 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-analyzer/traceroute-2.0.18  USE="-static" 66 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/hdparm-9.36  119 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-kernel/module-rebuild-0.5  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-benchmarks/iozone-3.397  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/sed-4.2.1  USE="nls -acl (-selinux) -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/findutils-4.4.2-r1  USE="nls (-selinux)
-static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/texinfo-4.13  USE="nls -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/coreutils-8.14  USE="nls unicode -acl -caps
-gmp (-selinux) -static -vanilla -xattr" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/make-3.82-r1  USE="nls -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-shells/bash-4.1_p9  USE="net nls -afs -bashlogger
-examples -mem-scramble -plugins -vanilla" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/dev-manager-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/os-headers-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/grep-2.9  USE="nls pcre" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/man-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/modutils-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/gawk-3.1.8  USE="nls" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/file-5.09  USE="zlib -python -static-libs" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-misc/rsync-3.0.9  USE="iconv ipv6 -acl -static
-xattr" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3  USE="-build" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/less-444  USE="unicode" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-editors/nano-2.2.5  USE="justify ncurses nls spell
unicode -debug -minimal -slang" 1,519 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/kbd-1.15.3  USE="nls" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/busybox-1.19.3-r1  USE="ipv6 pam
-make-symlinks -mdev -savedconfig (-selinux) -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/net-tools-1.60_p20110409135728  USE="nls
-static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-process/psmisc-22.14  USE="X ipv6 nls (-selinux)" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-arch/tar-1.26  USE="nls -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-process/procps-3.2.8_p11  USE="unicode" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/ssh-0  USE="-minimal" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-arch/gzip-1.4  USE="nls -pic -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-misc/wget-1.12-r3  USE="ipv6 nls ssl -debug -idn
-ntlm -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/diffutils-3.0  USE="nls -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/libc-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/font-alias-1.0.3  101 kB
[ebuild   R    ] x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.2-r2  USE="ipv6 nptl udev
xorg -dmx -doc -kdrive -minimal -static-libs -tslib -xnest -xvfb" 4,831 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] media-video/dvdauthor-0.7.0  USE="-graphicsmagick" 405 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/liberation-fonts-1.07.0-r2  USE="X
-fontforge" 1,296 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/dejavu-2.33  USE="X -fontforge" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/ttf-bitstream-vera-1.10-r3  USE="X" 259 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/unifont-5.1.20080914  USE="X" 8,351 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-misc/uptimed-0.3.16-r4  193 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/mlocate-0.24  USE="nls (-selinux)" 346 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/dstat-0.6.9-r1  73 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-portage/mirrorselect-2.1.0-r3  10 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-process/iotop-0.4.3  27 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-misc/tor-0.2.2.35  USE="threads transparent-proxy
-doc -tor-hardening" 2,723 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-misc/tmux-1.5  USE="-vim-syntax" 366 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/lshw-02.15b  USE="gtk -sqlite -static" 1,353 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/dbus-1.4.18  USE="X -debug -doc (-selinux)
-static-libs -test" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] www-plugins/gecko-mediaplayer-1.0.5  USE="curl" 257 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-portage/eix-0.23.10  USE="nls -debug -doc
-optimization -security -sqlite -strong-optimization -tools
-zsh-completion" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-boot/syslinux-4.05  USE="-custom-cflags" 5,358 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-misc/chrony-1.26  USE="readline -caps" 373 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-portage/ufed-0.40.1  77 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-analyzer/nmap-5.51  USE="gtk ssl -lua" 16,474 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/artwiz-aleczapka-en-1.3  USE="X" 36 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-fs/reiser4progs-1.0.7  USE="readline -debug
-static" 825 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-portage/genlop-0.30.8-r2  USE="bash-completion" 21 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/freefont-ttf-20090104  USE="X" 2,867 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-video/smplayer-0.6.9  USE="-debug" LINGUAS="en_US
-ar -bg -ca -cs -de -el -es -et -eu -fi -fr -gl -hu -it -ja -ka -ko -ku
-mk -nl -pl -pt -pt_BR -ro -ru -sk -sl -sr -sv -tr -uk -vi -zh_CN
-zh_TW" 1,683 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] net-misc/ntp-4.2.6_p4  USE="caps ssl zeroconf -debug
-ipv6 -openntpd -parse-clocks -samba (-selinux) -snmp -vim-syntax" 4,144 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] kde-base/kde-meta-4.8.1  USE="nls semantic-desktop
-accessibility (-aqua) -sdk" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/efont-unicode-0.4.2-r1  USE="X" 23,437 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-fs/treesize-0.54.1  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] games-arcade/missile-1.0.1  210 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/urwvn-fonts-3.05  USE="X" 1,292 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/corefonts-1-r4  USE="X" 3,843 kB
[ebuild   R    ] x11-misc/xfe-1.32.4  USE="nls startup-notification
-debug" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-portage/layman-1.4.1  USE="-bazaar -cvs -darcs -git
-mercurial -subversion -test" 59 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/qdiskusage-1.0.4  USE="-debug" 78 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-admin/gtkdiskfree-1.9.3-r1  USE="nls" 250 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-admin/gkrellm-2.3.5  USE="X hddtemp nls ssl -gnutls
-lm_sensors -ntlm" 748 kB
[ebuild   R    ] x11-misc/menumaker-0.99.7  USE="-doc" 136 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-gfx/exif-0.6.20  USE="nls" 443 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-analyzer/nettop-0.2.3-r1  23 kB
[ebuild   R    ] x11-wm/fluxbox-1.3.1  USE="imlib nls slit toolbar
truetype xinerama -bidi -gnome -vim-syntax" 781 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-process/htop-0.9-r2  USE="unicode -debug -openvz
-vserver" 409 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/freefonts-0.10-r3  USE="X" 2,367 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-portage/elogv-0.7.4  16 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/aquafont-2.7-r4  USE="X" 2,867 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-analyzer/iftop-0.17  157 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-mobilephone/wammu-0.35  USE="-bluetooth -gnome"
LINGUAS="-af -bg -ca -cs -da -de -el -es -et -fi -fr -gl -he -hu -id -it
-ko -nl -pl -pt_BR -ru -sk -sv -zh_CN -zh_TW" 560 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/hwinfo-18.5  714 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-process/atop-1.23  171 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-misc/whois-5.0.11  USE="iconv nls -idn" 80 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-portage/gpytage-0.3.0_rc1  45 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-sound/alsamixergui-0.9.0.1.2-r4  69 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-proxy/http-replicator-3.0-r2  39 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/binutils-2.21.1-r1  USE="nls zlib -multislot
-multitarget -static-libs -test -vanilla" 0 kB
[ebuild   R   *] sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha90  USE="doc (ipc) -build
-epydoc (-pypy1_8) -python2 -python3 (-selinux) -xattr" LINGUAS="-pl" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/util-linux-2.20.1-r1  USE="cramfs loop-aes
ncurses nls unicode -crypt -ddate -old-linux -perl (-selinux) -slang
-static-libs (-uclibc)" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/man-pages-3.35  USE="nls" LINGUAS="-da -de -fr
-it -ja -nl -pl -ro -ru -zh_CN" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/editor-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-misc/iputils-20101006-r2  USE="ipv6 ssl
-SECURITY_HAZARD -doc -idn -static" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/pager-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/shadow-4.1.4.3  USE="cracklib nls pam -audit
(-selinux) -skey" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-dialup/ppp-2.4.5-r1  USE="gtk ipv6 pam
-activefilter -atm -dhcp -eap-tls -radius" 709 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-gfx/gimp-2.6.11-r5  USE="alsa curl dbus doc exif
jpeg lcms mmx mng pdf png smp sse svg tiff webkit wmf -aalib (-altivec)
-debug -gnome -python" 16,088 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/ttf-fonts-1  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-fs/shake-0.31  39 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-process/vixie-cron-4.1-r12  USE="pam -debug
(-selinux)" 58 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-gfx/digikam-2.4.1  USE="gphoto2 handbook mysql
semantic-desktop thumbnails -addressbook (-aqua) -debug -doc
-themedesigner -video" LINGUAS="-af -ar -az -be -bg -bn -br -bs -ca -cs
-csb -cy -da -de -el -en_GB -eo -es -et -eu -fa -fi -fo -fr -fy -ga -gl
-ha -he -hi -hr -hsb -hu -id -is -it -ja -ka -kk -km -ko -ku -lb -lo -lt
-lv -mi -mk -mn -ms -mt -nb -nds -ne -nl -nn -nso -oc -pa -pl -pt -pt_BR
-ro -ru -rw -se -sk -sl -sq -sr -sr@Latn -ss -sv -ta -te -tg -th -tr -tt
-uk -uz -uz@cyrillic -ven -vi -wa -xh -zh_CN -zh_HK -zh_TW -zu" 53,254 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/font-bh-ttf-1.0.3  USE="X" 455 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-power/nut-2.6.0-r1  USE="bash-completion ssl tcpd
xml -cgi -snmp -usb" 1,664 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/font-bh-type1-1.0.3  USE="X" 623 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] app-office/scribus-1.4.0-r1  USE="examples minimal pdf
spell templates -cairo -debug" LINGUAS="en_US -af -ar -bg -br -ca -cs_CZ
-cy -da_DK -de -de_1901 -de_CH -el -en_AU -en_GB -es_ES -et -eu -fi -fr
-gl -hu -id -it -ja -ko -lt_LT -nb_NO -nl -pl_PL -pt -pt_BR -ru -sa
-sk_SK -sl -sq -sr -sv -th_TH -tr -uk -zh_CN -zh_TW" 41,147 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/font-adobe-utopia-type1-1.0.4  USE="X" 263 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/smartmontools-5.42  USE="-caps -minimal
-static" 725 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-admin/syslog-ng-3.2.5  USE="ipv6 pcre ssl tcpd
-caps -hardened (-selinux) -spoof-source -sql" 1,415 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-apps/usbutils-004  USE="zlib -network-cron -python"
0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] x11-wm/icewm-1.2.37  USE="nls truetype xinerama -debug
(-esd) -gnome -imlib -minimal (-uclibc)" 823 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-gfx/kphotoalbum-4.1.1-r1  USE="exif geolocation
kipi raw semantic-desktop (-aqua) -debug" LINGUAS="-ar -be -bg -ca -cs
-da -de -el -en_GB -eo -es -et -fi -fr -ga -gl -hi -hne -is -it -ja -km
-lt -nb -nds -nl -nn -pa -pl -pt -pt_BR -ro -se -sk -sv -tr -uk -vi
-zh_CN -zh_TW" 7,968 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] media-video/h264enc-9.4.1  USE="aac dvd flac mp4 vorbis
-lame -matroska -ogm" 118 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-backup/kbackup-0.7.1  USE="handbook (-aqua) -debug"
LINGUAS="-cs -de -es -fr -it -pt -pt_BR -ru -sk -sv" 493 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-video/kaffeine-1.2.2  USE="(-aqua) -debug"
LINGUAS="-ar -ast -be -bg -ca -ca@valencia -cs -da -de -el -en_GB -eo
-es -et -fi -fr -ga -gl -hr -hu -it -ja -km -ko -ku -lt -mai -nb -nds
-nl -nn -pa -pl -pt -pt_BR -ro -ru -se -sk -sr@ijekavian
-sr@ijekavianlatin -sr@latin -sv -th -tr -uk -zh_CN -zh_TW" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] x11-apps/mesa-progs-8.0.1  9,766 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-cdr/k3b-2.0.2-r1  USE="dvd encode ffmpeg flac
handbook mad vcd vorbis wav (-aqua) -debug -emovix -lame -musepack
-musicbrainz -sndfile -sox -taglib" LINGUAS="-ast -be -bg -ca
-ca@valencia -cs -csb -da -de -el -en_GB -eo -es -et -eu -fi -fr -ga -gl
-he -hi -hne -hr -hu -is -it -ja -km -ko -ku -lt -mai -nb -nds -nl -nn
-oc -pa -pl -pt -pt_BR -ro -ru -se -sk -sl -sv -th -tr -uk -zh_CN
-zh_TW" 12,533 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/font-bitstream-type1-1.0.3  USE="X" 407 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/font-adobe-utopia-100dpi-1.0.4  USE="X nls"
346 kB
[ebuild   R    ] kde-misc/tellico-2.3.4  USE="cddb handbook pdf
semantic-desktop -addressbook (-aqua) -debug -musicbrainz -scanner
-taglib -v4l -xmp -yaz" LINGUAS="-bg -bs -ca -ca@valencia -cs -da -de
-el -en_GB -eo -es -et -eu -fi -fr -ga -gl -hu -ia -it -ja -lt -ms -nb
-nds -nl -nn -pl -pt -pt_BR -ro -ru -sk -sv -tr -ug -uk -zh_CN -zh_TW"
2,843 kB
[ebuild   R    ] www-plugins/adobe-flash-11.1.102.62  USE="64bit kde
(multilib) -32bit -vdpau" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] www-client/links-2.5  USE="X bzip2 gpm jpeg lzma ssl
tiff unicode zlib -directfb -fbcon -livecd (-suid) (-svga)" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/font-misc-misc-1.1.2  USE="X nls" 1,889 kB
[ebuild   R    ] x11-themes/fluxbox-styles-fluxmod-20050128-r1  1,250 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-video/mkvtoolnix-4.9.1  USE="bzip2 -debug -lzo
-pch -wxwidgets" 2,045 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-sound/amarok-2.4.3-r1  USE="cdda embedded opengl
semantic-desktop utils -daap -debug -ipod -lastfm -mp3tunes -mtp"
LINGUAS="-bg -ca -cs -da -de -en_GB -es -et -eu -fi -fr -it -ja -km -nb
-nds -nl -pa -pl -pt -pt_BR -ru -sl -sr -sr@latin -sv -th -tr -uk -wa
-zh_TW" 17,059 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] media-video/smplayer2-0.7.0_pre20111120
USE="download-subs -debug" LINGUAS="en_US -ar -bg -ca -cs -da -de -el
-es -et -eu -fi -fr -gl -hu -it -ja -ka -ko -ku -lt -mk -nl -pl -pt
-pt_BR -ro -ru -sk -sl -sr -sv -tr -uk -vi -zh_CN -zh_TW" 1,139 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/font-adobe-100dpi-1.0.3  USE="X nls" 1,088 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-analyzer/wireshark-1.6.4  USE="caps gtk ipv6 pcap
ssl threads zlib -adns -ares -doc -doc-pdf -gcrypt -geoip -kerberos -lua
-portaudio -profile -python (-selinux) -smi" 20,962 kB
[ebuild   R    ] kde-misc/krename-4.0.7  USE="exif pdf truetype (-aqua)
-debug -taglib" LINGUAS="-bs -cs -de -el -es -fr -hu -it -ja -nl -pl -pt
-ru -sl -sv -tr -uk -zh_CN" 232 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] net-print/hplip-3.12.2-r2  USE="X hpcups kde libnotify
parport (policykit) qt4 -acl -doc -fax -hpijs -minimal -scanner -snmp
-static-ppds" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-admin/logrotate-3.8.1  USE="-acl (-selinux)" 48 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] media-video/bombono-dvd-1.2.1  USE="-gnome -test" 4,015 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-fonts/font-ibm-type1-1.0.3  USE="X" 369 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] media-video/avidemux-2.5.6  USE="aac aften alsa gtk mp3
nls opengl qt4 sdl truetype vorbis x264 xv xvid -amr -dts (-esd) -jack
-libsamplerate -oss -pulseaudio" LINGUAS="-bg -ca -cs -de -el -es -fr
-it -ja -pt_BR -ru -sr -sr@latin -tr -zh_TW" 0 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] media-gfx/hugin-2011.4.0  USE="sift -lapack -python"
LINGUAS="-bg -ca -cs -da -de -en_GB -es -fi -fr -hu -it -ja -ko -nl -pl
-pt_BR -ro -ru -sk -sl -sv -uk -zh_CN -zh_TW" 11,466 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] media-gfx/gtkam-0.1.18  USE="debug nls -gimp -gnome" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-video/kdenlive-0.8.2.1  USE="handbook
semantic-desktop (-aqua) -debug" LINGUAS="-ca -cs -da -de -el -es -et
-fi -fr -gl -he -hr -hu -it -nl -pl -pt -pt_BR -ru -sl -tr -uk -zh
-zh_CN -zh_TW" 5,016 kB
[ebuild   R    ] x11-drivers/xf86-video-vesa-2.3.0  USE="-debug" 259 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] media-video/devede-3.21.0  USE="ffmpeg" 2,478 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-misc/screen-4.0.3-r4  USE="pam -debug -multiuser
-nethack (-selinux)" 821 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/gcc-4.5.3-r2  USE="cxx fortran gtk mudflap
(multilib) nls nptl openmp (-altivec) -bootstrap -build -doc
(-fixed-point) -gcj -graphite (-hardened) (-libssp) -lto -multislot
-nocxx -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test -vanilla" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.42  USE="nls -static-libs" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] virtual/package-manager-0  0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.6-r1  USE="cxx fortran gtk mudflap
(multilib) nls nptl openmp (-altivec) -bootstrap -build -doc
(-fixed-point) -gcj -graphite (-hardened) (-libssp) -multislot -nocxx
-nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test -vanilla" 0 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.2.9  USE="-build -deblob
-symlink" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-portage/pfl-2.3  USE="network-cron" 17 kB
[ebuild   R    ] www-plugins/nspluginwrapper-1.4.4-r1  403 kB
[ebuild   R    ] www-client/firefox-10.0.1-r1  USE="alsa crashreporter
dbus ipc libnotify minimal startup-notification webm -bindist
-custom-cflags -custom-optimization -debug -pgo (-selinux)
-system-sqlite -wifi" LINGUAS="-af -ak -ar -as -ast -be -bg -bn_BD
-bn_IN -br -bs -ca -cs -csb -cy -da -de -el -en_GB -en_ZA -eo -es_AR
-es_CL -es_ES -es_MX -et -eu -fa -fi -fr -fy_NL -ga_IE -gd -gl -gu_IN
-he -hi_IN -hr -hu -hy_AM -id -is -it -ja -kk -kn -ko -ku -lg -lt -lv
-mai -mk -ml -mr -nb_NO -nl -nn_NO -nso -or -pa_IN -pl -pt_BR -pt_PT -rm
-ro -ru -si -sk -sl -son -sq -sr -sv_SE -ta -ta_LK -te -th -tr -uk -vi
-zh_CN -zh_TW -zu" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] www-client/seamonkey-2.7.1-r1  USE="alsa chatzilla
crypt dbus ipc libnotify roaming startup-notification webm
-custom-cflags -custom-optimization -debug -system-sqlite -wifi"
LINGUAS="-be -ca -cs -de -en_GB -es_AR -es_ES -fi -fr -gl -hu -it -ja
-lt -nb_NO -nl -pl -pt_PT -ru -sk -sv_SE -tr -zh_CN" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-portage/elogviewer-0.5.2-r2  14 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-office/libreoffice-3.4.5.2  USE="dbus gtk java kde
mysql nsplugin opengl pdfimport vba (-aqua) -binfilter -branding
-custom-cflags -debug -eds -gnome -graphite -gstreamer -jemalloc -odk
-python -test -webdav" 252,523 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] app-portage/porthole-0.6.1-r3  USE="nls" LINGUAS="-de
-fr -it -pl -ru -tr -vi" 0 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1  USE="device-mapper -debug
-net (-selinux)" DRACUT_MODULES="lvm -biosdevname -btrfs -caps -crypt
-crypt-gpg -dmraid -dmsquash-live -gensplash -iscsi -livenet -mdraid
-multipath -nbd -nfs -plymouth -ssh-client -syslog" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-dialup/wvdial-1.61  93 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] app-doc/gimp-help-2.6.1  LINGUAS="en -de -es -fr -it
-ja -ko -nl -nn -pl -ru -sv -zh_CN" 28,054 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.2.2  USE="-build -deblob
-symlink" 100 kB
[ebuild   R    ] net-dialup/pppconfig-2.3.17-r1  USE="nls" LINGUAS="-ca
-cs -da -de -el -es -eu -fi -fr -gl -he -id -it -ja -ko -lt -nb -nl -nn
-pt -pt_BR -ro -ru -sk -sv -tl -tr -vi -zh_CN -zh_TW" 369 kB
[ebuild   R    ] app-portage/gentoolkit-0.3.0.4-r5  0 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] sci-geosciences/googleearth-6.2.1.6014-r1
USE="qt-bundled -mdns-bundled" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-gfx/luminance-hdr-2.0.0  USE="openmp -debug"
LINGUAS="-cs -de -es -fr -hu -id -it -pl -ru -tr" 2,394 kB
[ebuild   R   ~] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-295.20-r1  USE="acpi gtk
(multilib) -custom-cflags" 57,035 kB
[ebuild   R    ] media-video/nvidia-settings-260.19.29  1,501 kB

Total: 178 packages (178 reinstalls), Size of downloads: 659,737 kB

!!! The following installed packages are masked:
- sys-fs/udev-171-r5::gentoo (masked by: package.mask)
For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge
man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.


emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy
"sys-kernel/gentoo-sources:3.2.0-r1".
(dependency required by "@selected" [set])
(dependency required by "@world" [argument])

emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy "sys-kernel/gentoo-sources:3.1.5".
(dependency required by "@selected" [set])
(dependency required by "@world" [argument])

!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "kde-misc/krecipes" have been masked.
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your
request:
- kde-misc/krecipes-2.0_beta2::gentoo (masked by: ~amd64 keyword)

(dependency required by "@selected" [set])
(dependency required by "@world" [argument])
For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge
man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.

root@fireball / #

You can disregard the no ebuild stuff.  Looks like when my meds are gone
I got to do some cleaning.

Hope that helps.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Oooops, almost forgot.  I got to remove udev from the mask file.  <
scratches head >

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Walter.

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 04:09:46AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:22:39PM -0500, Dale wrote

> > I think mdev has shown it can be fixed.  Given time, it just may replace
> > udev then the udev dev can screw up his own stuff on not bother other
> > distros.  I'm giving mdev some thought here.  I want /usr on LVM which
> > means it has to be separate.

>   Sorry, in lste-breaking news, it looks like udev is a mandatory
> dependancy for lvm2.  No udev ==> No lvm2

I can mount and use my lvm2 partitions under mdev.  As I said, I don't
yet know whether lvm2's full functionality is available.

I suspect there'll be quite a few packages which list udev as a
dependency, yet work well enough under mdev.

>   Can you run a test for me?  What happens when you...

> 1) insert the line
> sys-fs/udev
> into /etc/portage/package.mask

> 2) execute "emerge -pv system"

> 3) execute "emerge -pv world"

> 4) Remember to remove the "sys-fs/udev" line from package.mask<G>

>   I expect that you should get an error message about not being able to
> emerge lvm2 due to udev being masked.  This is something I intend to add
> to the instructions, so people can check ahead of time whether their
> particular setup is able to run without udev.

The solution to this, ugly though it might be, is to leave udev in the
system so as to allow these other packages to be merged.

> -- 
> Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1694 bytes --]

On Mar 14, 2012 9:45 PM, "Alan Mackenzie" <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>
> Hi, Walter.
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 04:09:46AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:22:39PM -0500, Dale wrote
>
> > > I think mdev has shown it can be fixed.  Given time, it just may
replace
> > > udev then the udev dev can screw up his own stuff on not bother other
> > > distros.  I'm giving mdev some thought here.  I want /usr on LVM which
> > > means it has to be separate.
>
> >   Sorry, in lste-breaking news, it looks like udev is a mandatory
> > dependancy for lvm2.  No udev ==> No lvm2
>
> I can mount and use my lvm2 partitions under mdev.  As I said, I don't
> yet know whether lvm2's full functionality is available.
>
> I suspect there'll be quite a few packages which list udev as a
> dependency, yet work well enough under mdev.
>
> >   Can you run a test for me?  What happens when you...
>
> > 1) insert the line
> > sys-fs/udev
> > into /etc/portage/package.mask
>
> > 2) execute "emerge -pv system"
>
> > 3) execute "emerge -pv world"
>
> > 4) Remember to remove the "sys-fs/udev" line from package.mask<G>
>
> >   I expect that you should get an error message about not being able to
> > emerge lvm2 due to udev being masked.  This is something I intend to add
> > to the instructions, so people can check ahead of time whether their
> > particular setup is able to run without udev.
>
> The solution to this, ugly though it might be, is to leave udev in the
> system so as to allow these other packages to be merged.
>

... or, put sys-fs/udev in package.provided

Of course, if a package *actually* needs udev, that's a sure-fire recipe
for catastrophe (for that package).

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2240 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Walter Dnes]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 09:50:02PM +0100, pk wrote

> So udev-181 (masked) is ok to use without initrd and separate /usr
> then? Thanks for the info!

  I believe that 180 or 181 is the first version that requires /usr on /
(or an initramfs or whatever).  And that's why it's currently masked.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[John Blinka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 633 bytes --]





-- Sent from my Palm Pre
On Mar 10, 2012 10:38 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote: 

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:58:18 +0100, pk wrote:



> Btw, does anyone know which version of udev requires access to /usr? I'm

> running latest stable here 171-r5 and I have separate partitions for

> /home /opt /usr /usr/local /tmp /var, all on LVM and /boot on a separate

> partition outside of LVM, and it works fine.



I'm using the latest testing with a separate /usr and no problems.





-- 

Neil Bothwick



WinErr 014: Keyboard locked - Try anything you can think of.



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 958 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Todd Goodman]

* Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> [120309 21:55]:
> Howdy,
> 
[..]
> [    0.787822] Trying to unpack rootfs image as initramfs...

It found your initramfs...

> [    0.867787] Freeing initrd memory: 5084k freed

The followng look like they're from your Dracut initramfs

> [    0.880111] audit: initializing netlink socket (disabled)
> [    0.880439] type=2000 audit(1331081750.879:1): initialized
> [    0.912626] fuse init (API version 7.17)
> [    1.258561] ehci_hcd 0000:00:12.2: init command 0010005 (park)=0
> ithresh=1 period=512 RUN
> [    1.270152] ehci_hcd 0000:00:13.2: init command 0010005 (park)=0
> ithresh=1 period=512 RUN
> [    1.583458] device-mapper: ioctl: 4.22.0-ioctl (2011-10-19)
> initialised: dm-devel@redhat.com

The following here certainly are

> [    4.258421] init-early.sh used greatest stack depth: 3696 bytes left
> [    4.503735] init.sh used greatest stack depth: 3576 bytes left

And the following are confirmation

> root@fireball / # dmesg | grep dracut
> [    3.018189] dracut: Checking reiserfs: /dev/sda3
> [    3.018531] dracut: issuing reiserfsck -a  /dev/sda3
> [    3.033879] dracut: Reiserfs super block in block 16 on 0x803 of
> format 3.6 with standard journal
> [    3.034463] dracut: Blocks (total/free): 4883760/2502678 by 4096 bytes
> [    3.034781] dracut: Filesystem is clean
> [    3.035210] dracut: Remounting /dev/sda3 with -o ro
> [    3.082413] dracut: Mounted root filesystem /dev/sda3
> [    3.158322] dracut: Switching root
> root@fireball / #
> 
> And grub looks like this:
> 
> title=Initramfs-new_kernel
> root (hd0,0)
> kernel /boot/bzImage-3.2.2-1 root=/dev/sda3 init=/sbin/init
> initrd /initramfs-3.2.2-1.img
> 
> Does anyone think dracut is not working?  I need to make certain before
> diving into the next step.

Looks like it's all working for you then!

Todd

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Dale]

Todd Goodman wrote:
> * Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> [120309 21:55]:
>> Howdy,
>>
> [..]
>> [    0.787822] Trying to unpack rootfs image as initramfs...
> 
> It found your initramfs...
> 
>> [    0.867787] Freeing initrd memory: 5084k freed
> 
> The followng look like they're from your Dracut initramfs
> 
>> [    0.880111] audit: initializing netlink socket (disabled)
>> [    0.880439] type=2000 audit(1331081750.879:1): initialized
>> [    0.912626] fuse init (API version 7.17)
>> [    1.258561] ehci_hcd 0000:00:12.2: init command 0010005 (park)=0
>> ithresh=1 period=512 RUN
>> [    1.270152] ehci_hcd 0000:00:13.2: init command 0010005 (park)=0
>> ithresh=1 period=512 RUN
>> [    1.583458] device-mapper: ioctl: 4.22.0-ioctl (2011-10-19)
>> initialised: dm-devel@redhat.com
> 
> The following here certainly are
> 
>> [    4.258421] init-early.sh used greatest stack depth: 3696 bytes left
>> [    4.503735] init.sh used greatest stack depth: 3576 bytes left
> 
> And the following are confirmation
> 
>> root@fireball / # dmesg | grep dracut
>> [    3.018189] dracut: Checking reiserfs: /dev/sda3
>> [    3.018531] dracut: issuing reiserfsck -a  /dev/sda3
>> [    3.033879] dracut: Reiserfs super block in block 16 on 0x803 of
>> format 3.6 with standard journal
>> [    3.034463] dracut: Blocks (total/free): 4883760/2502678 by 4096 bytes
>> [    3.034781] dracut: Filesystem is clean
>> [    3.035210] dracut: Remounting /dev/sda3 with -o ro
>> [    3.082413] dracut: Mounted root filesystem /dev/sda3
>> [    3.158322] dracut: Switching root
>> root@fireball / #
>>
>> And grub looks like this:
>>
>> title=Initramfs-new_kernel
>> root (hd0,0)
>> kernel /boot/bzImage-3.2.2-1 root=/dev/sda3 init=/sbin/init
>> initrd /initramfs-3.2.2-1.img
>>
>> Does anyone think dracut is not working?  I need to make certain before
>> diving into the next step.
> 
> Looks like it's all working for you then!
> 
> Todd
> 
> 


Yeppie !!!!   :-D   :-D  :-D

I don't think I asked for help getting it to work either.  o_O

Oh, I did get the fresh install to start compiling.  Just had to get a
sledge hammer and threaten it a little bit.  I didn't hurt the paint job
tho.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"