From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1R4JJ1-0003er-F9 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:17:11 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B881121C22C; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:17:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpq1.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq1.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.34.164]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07A721C09D for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [212.54.34.138] (helo=smtp7.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq1.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R4JHy-0004Oz-6e for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 23:16:06 +0200 Received: from 5ed027a1.cm-7-1a.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([94.208.39.161] helo=data.antarean.org) by smtp7.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R4JHx-00017z-Cl for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 23:16:05 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 816B7DAB for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 23:16:17 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at antarean.org Received: from data.antarean.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (data.antarean.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lB+bMR0xV47F for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 23:16:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eve.localnet (eve.lan.antarean.org [10.20.13.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1042635 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 23:16:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Joost Roeleveld To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] udev + /usr Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 23:16:03 +0200 Message-ID: <1453437.J9amsHg7VM@eve> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.1 (Linux/2.6.36-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.7.1; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1720176.jW0GbpkhUk@platypus> References: <20110912150248.GB3599@acm.acm> <4E70F448.8060500@gmail.com> <1720176.jW0GbpkhUk@platypus> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-ID: 1R4JHx-00017z-Cl X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-SpamCheck: geen spam, SpamAssassin (niet cached, score=-0.692, vereist 5, BAYES_00 -1.90, KHOP_DYNAMIC 0.73, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.98, RP_MATCHES_RCVD -0.50) X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-From: joost@antarean.org X-Spam-Status: No X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: e90dbef72f7c6f5713524fd9f8910311 On Thursday, September 15, 2011 04:42:23 PM Mike Edenfield wrote: > On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 01:36:56 PM Dale wrote: > > Canek Pel=E1ez Vald=E9s wrote: > > > But that's the thing: we (you and me) don't see the situation the= > > > same > > > way. To me, the proposed changes are for the better. > >=20 > > You are one of very few that feel this way. >=20 > You are probably correct that he's one of the relatively few people (= along > with the udev developer, and those few people for whom it will fix th= eir > problems) who think these changes are a real improvement. If for those people using an initramfs solves their problems, then I'm = not=20 against it. And I don't think many others are either. But why are people forced to use an initramfs where it is not needed? > I would estimate that the vast, vast, vast majority of users are thos= e such > as myslelf, who have no opinion whatsoever, and either will not be af= fected > at all by these changes (because they don't separate / and /usr), or = will > simply apply the proposed initramfs solution and move on. You also don't have /var (or /var/log) seperated? Or any of the other p= arts of=20 the filesystem that might be required by udev-rules? > Then there are those relatively few people, such as the handful makin= g up > the rest of this thread, who think that these changes are a horrible = idea > and will have a severe deterimental affect on their systems. Any added complexity is another thing that can go wrong. In the thread on gentoo-dev, I am trying to figure out 3 things: 1) How are the Gentoo Developers planning on adding this new change? 2) What are the options for not having to have an initramfs if the udev= -rules=20 used don't actually require /usr and co to be mounted. 3) Get their input in a possible alternative (like fixing the, what I s= ee,=20 design-flaws of udev) On "1", I am actually quite pleased. The actual information I could fin= d=20 previously sounded a lot worse. I've just got a few more questions open= based=20 on their answers. Once I have the full picture, I'll post it back here.= For "2", I've only just started. I'll also post back here on what my fi= ndings=20 are. For "3", I've got some feedback on how udev currently handles things. T= hese=20 actually have given me a few other ways in which to try to "solve" the = issue.=20 I'll need to try to find out how udev actually handles the "retry" queu= e=20 currently. > Not that the relative "size" of the various sides in this debate is r= eally > the issue, but despite the tone of this and the other thread, I don't= think > there's really a huge, overwhelming outcry against these changes. I wonder how many are actually aware of these changes. But yes, I think= plenty=20 of people will not care and if the Gentoo-devs handle this correctly (w= hich,=20 so far, I think they are) those people won't even notice. But, there will always be some people who get bitten by this and my rea= sons=20 for going with parts 1 and 2 is to see how to keep this group as small = as=20 possible. -- Joost