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 1R1lOz-0007Nj-AJ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:40:49 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 026C821C3BD; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:40:24 +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 7F1C821C292 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:38:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwf25 with SMTP id 25so335329wwf.10 for ; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:38:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2rJoe6s07zlmvh3Roaa4MFQgKArdYAiuqm1cgHh0Wf0=; b=JZ9NAfC55dpxDyZg+5Z6PJQuB920LE5ws/955bn2rOK26CbdiWAWJXMbA2ckzWudCQ bLeyAxT1MUhnmmyN55niPVzf7Tl6O/7ZwqvBeMKBkf8h90VTpU7bUOIaI3XmSu6ieeeN 34CrEfIg3b0wwOntTMzJHeLb3veiqFuPvq3LM= Received: by 10.216.221.83 with SMTP id q61mr1189585wep.57.1315514315736; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rohan (196-210-153-55.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.210.153.55]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n12sm5449868wbp.7.2011.09.08.13.38.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 22:38:28 +0200 From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot Message-ID: <20110908223828.5188d386@rohan> In-Reply-To: References: <201108191109.34984.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <20110908023729.45d1b985@karnak.local> <4495743.s0RYfxWcgT@pc> <20110908214836.014d6adc@rohan> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.24.4; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: f52ae224006487eb5270b29ed0810d54 On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:21:11 -0400 Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: > > I do not have an initramfs, do not > > need one, see no need to have one and have not yet seen a valid > > technical reason for why having one is ideal. =20 >=20 > It's not "ideal" (I don't think anybody has said that). Almost nothing > is "ideal" in computer science. >=20 > Maybe it's not enough for you, but I repeat: we need dynamic /dev > trees, udev giveus that, the udev code lives in user space, we need an > early user space =3D> initramfs. I didn't say I don't use udev, I do. I too have cameras, USB gadgets and a huge array of possible hotplug objects in the shops I can buy at any time. udev makes that all work well. I don't agree with the assertion that "user space =3D> initramfs". You obviously must start udev as soon as possible in the boot process. For it to work at all, one of the minimum requirements is something mounted at / containing udev rules. This can be an initramfs or a physical disk or anything else that can possibly behave as a block device. I know of nothing in the kernel that *requires* it to be an initramfs. The code should be generic enough that I can mount whatever I want, then do whatever I need to do within limits and finally pivot mount the real / I don't see a reasonable argument as to why things cannot continue to behave just like this. >=20 > > My gentoo systems do not > > run binary distros, I have no need for a generic mechanism designed > > to cope with any hardware Fedora might happen to find itself > > booting on, hardware that the devs have no idea of when they > > compile their distros. =20 >=20 > Hey, I compile all my modules inside my kernels. That has nothing to > do with udev, because you can connect via USB or eSATA *any* hardware > into your computer, and the /dev tree needs to update dynamically. >=20 > Maybe *you* don't want that, and that's fine: but the majority of > users do want that. Your use-case is not the most important one in the > whole world. I never said it is, I never said we don't need udev. I am saying in this thread that I do not understand the new requirements for /usr - everything there can be mandated to be in / instead where it is guaranteed to be accessible to udev =20 --=20 Alan McKinnnon alan.mckinnon@gmail.com