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 1R1nD9-0008IG-SL for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:36:44 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C49621C2EC; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 22:36:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.muc.de (colin.muc.de [193.149.48.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F2D21C160 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 22:34:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 52956 invoked by uid 3782); 8 Sep 2011 22:34:57 -0000 Received: from acm.muc.de (pD9556D77.dip.t-dialin.net [217.85.109.119]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 00:34:56 +0200 Received: (qmail 4058 invoked by uid 1000); 8 Sep 2011 22:31:15 -0000 Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 22:31:15 +0000 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot Message-ID: <20110908223115.GD2338@acm.acm> References: <201108191109.34984.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <20110908220536.55dd3798@rohan> <1868314.dUVoYqWeDk@pc> <20110908212940.GB2338@acm.acm> <20110908234441.06901191@rohan> 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: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110908234441.06901191@rohan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) From: Alan Mackenzie X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 53a9e296506b53f34961be4c8955fd32 On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 11:44:41PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > Would it not be possible to have a minimal /usr tree in the root > > partition for udev's use at boot time, and to later mount a more > > robust /usr partition over this? What am I missing here? > A big problem will be that the package manager cannot easily maintain > that "phase 1" code as it's under another mount point. Doing so would > require the package manager to bind-mount / somewhere and > copy updated binaries of essential packages there as well as into the > real /usr. Not an insurmountable problem, it just requires changes to > all affected packages, and well within the capabilities of distros. > As a workaround, it's certainly a fine example. But I suspect it will > annoy a lot of users and support people due to this "hidden" code being > on the filesystem. If I were a package maintainer, I know I'd feel a > little annoyed with having to track yet another trait in my packages. I'm trying to think of some solution that won't annoy lots of people. What on earth were the developers thinking when they swept away the fundamentals assumptions of booting? > -- > Alan McKinnnon > alan.mckinnon@gmail.com -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).