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 1QRVgl-0003Rq-Rx for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 31 May 2011 20:37:20 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C165F1C19B; Tue, 31 May 2011 20:34:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763E11C19B for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 20:34:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwj40 with SMTP id 40so4777674wwj.10 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:34:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=t5uxV1W5AE6e36u1stwC/08csgTdNokwHCeGYwgveYQ=; b=K5r+GaCzZTVSKxSO9kmzF/HyCVRZUbzXVTfgRHrAWWQnkUhD7z3B/AtPg8MHXDpiAQ 9nzhwtXSlcqdaoHtxlZ57sC2udeQtN6lwy04l2zT6fxuHro5DVBHg55PoMe0e+PLP7uq WsRK7yiT4RAggEf1fupeViCicAQJm3rwdWVRk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=j2oHhZhy6zSqhXIc5IQ33IzppIBuwwwaHZxmXARVwZzcMJoblpM32I4wXF4/btt6nu gS1g6vyfrGBkZL8ohDLJzHJ0nzLMSHAw/BlLZtNri00N2D2IbKOzErFnA6ngYTO6nlfX xcBhZxHWqCq2x0XWALpSn2kAQgrVCg6UCzwWc= Received: by 10.216.237.102 with SMTP id x80mr229119weq.111.1306874098631; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dell_xps.localnet (230.3.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.3.230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 77sm254074wet.33.2011.05.31.13.34.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 31 May 2011 13:34:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Mick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox? Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 21:35:35 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.38-gentoo-r6; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) References: <201105312027.53328.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <201105312202.46340.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201105312202.46340.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> 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-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart5055964.FJxbj307XN"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201105312135.36478.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 7492bb93aa87b029bd5d2966b078a5b2 --nextPart5055964.FJxbj307XN Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tuesday 31 May 2011 21:02:46 Alan McKinnon wrote: > Apparently, though unproven, at 21:27 on Tuesday 31 May 2011, Mick did > opine >=20 > thusly: > > On Tuesday 31 May 2011 08:07:24 Pandu Poluan wrote: > > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 13:56, Alan McKinnon > >=20 > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Pandu Poluan =20 wrote: > > > >> Meh, I clicked 'Send' too fast. > > > >>=20 > > > >> *My* suggested solution: > > > >>=20 > > > >> Generate an initramfs containing udev. The hands-down easiest way = is > > > >> using genkernel's 'only create an initramfs' switch (sorry I forgot > > > >> what exactly). > > > >=20 > > > > good god no, please, anything but genkernel. > > > >=20 > > > > That thing is an attempt to emulate binary distros which require an > > > > initramfs to work properly (for any sane definition of "work") as t= he > > > > person building the installer has no idea what hardware the user wi= ll > > > > have. In Gentoo the user knows exactly what they have so there's no > > > > need for a gigantic hardware-detecting workaround at boot time. > > > >=20 > > > >> This needs to be done exactly once throughout the life of your VM. > > > >>=20 > > > >> (To the herd of Gentoo graybeards, feel free to CMIIW) > > > >=20 > > > > Or wait a few days for vapier's (posting under his other name of > > > > spanky) sane advice to be implemented. His proposal is the sole voi= ce > > > > of reason in that bug thread.... > > >=20 > > > True. But I was having problem installing 2 servers on top of > > > XenServer. > > >=20 > > > So I cheated and ran 'genkernel initramfs' exactly once. At least I > > > got myself a booting system. :-) > > >=20 > > > When SpanKY's makedev gets stabilized and pushed to baselayout, I'll > > > then happily ditch the genkernel cheat for my next VMs :-) > >=20 > > Are you sure that manually creating /dev/console and /dev/null isn't all > > that is required? The rest of the devices will be created by udev when > > it runs at boot time. >=20 > null and console are the absolute irreducible minimum but there's one that > can be dispensed with if the correct kernel option is enabled. >=20 > We don't need everything that makedev traditionally provided (like every > block device type known to man, floppys and ancient ptys) but the rest > number about ~250 and are useful in single-user mode if udev fails to > start. >=20 > Considering that ~250 devices consumes a teeny-weeny bit of disk space and > they are hidden from view normally, I say it's worth it leaving them in. > Which is what vapier also says. I see. In my head it is as if we're going against the udev principle of=20 populating required device nodes. If udev does not start, isn't it time to= =20 head for the nearest LiveCD, or must we ensure that every breakage is fixab= le=20 in single-user mode? =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart5055964.FJxbj307XN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk3lURgACgkQVTDTR3kpaLaVwACeKBtXhGmHi7tw/tC97uLbFYzL muAAn2CN4Mej3pp6i37DEoQMc0htWu8V =9OKw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart5055964.FJxbj307XN--