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 1R1uUr-0004Ua-Lw for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 06:23:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C71421C151; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:23:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04FF121C10C for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:22:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so1540345wyg.40 for ; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 23:22:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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; bh=AK+uqqnej2uktR2PGnk9QHDCJ+CgW1RV4jQe6xeBO3I=; b=KHDZwwG2UOBb6ynNV38detTjTCzfUpxdO8pD6X3fv81BZlaQVHYpFX3xtinkMHrvIP MP85ILTSrylQG6/dat9rie2zVxwDhzXuqQtGD1cK8JqbkAsBWBrNKrGHv87RFKVa+nS8 rL6oqwWgoEZr/HMdu2OFYpxNAKKBg4fTkuWHE= Received: by 10.216.137.150 with SMTP id y22mr1540598wei.65.1315549343974; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 23:22:23 -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 z18sm6384308wbm.22.2011.09.08.23.22.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 08 Sep 2011 23:22:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Mick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:22:08 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.39-gentoo-r3; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201108191109.34984.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <20110909010018.5df83ae5@rohan> In-Reply-To: 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="nextPart2891645.GkaWzqoYgh"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201109090722.22505.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: b281a88313c6414e663d0cf45d382b4b --nextPart2891645.GkaWzqoYgh Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Friday 09 Sep 2011 00:26:33 Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Alan McKinnon =20 wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 18:39:21 -0400 > >=20 > > Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Mick > >>=20 > >> wrote: > >> > Unless I misunderstood this and referenced threads, all this agro > >> > is being generated because udev devs decided to give primacy not to > >> > the linux fs and prevailing FHS conventions, but their udev code > >> > and what may have been an easy workaround for them? > >> >=20 > >> > Given that I do not understand the ins and outs of udev, or the way > >> > gentoo and upstream manage such proposals and ultimately accept > >> > changes, why don't gentoo devs raise alternative options with the > >> > Fedora dev or who ever had this idea upstream that udev code effort > >> > is more precious than all the workarounds (initramfs, > >> > repartitioning, etc.) that some of us have to go through? > >> >=20 > >> > The alternatives I've read so far that advocate the avoidance of the > >> > imposition of an initramfs or merging /usr into / for the sake of a > >> > udev design choice, seem more 'intelligent' to me - in a gentoo > >> > principle sort of way. > >> >=20 > >> > On the other hand, for a binary distro the udev dev approach would > >> > of course seem less disruptive and therefore our small gentoo user > >> > base may need to shout really loud to be heard. > >> >=20 > >> > Do we get to vote on this? > >>=20 > >> Not really: you can vote with your feet and use another > >> distro/operating system. But the choice is theirs. > >>=20 > >> > Can we make a difference other than venting here > >> > and in the forums? > >>=20 > >> Yes: design and write a different system. > >=20 > > That's a really poor answer. You are offering two distasteful options > > at either end of the spectrum when the real solution is plainly obvious > > right in the middle: > >=20 > > Communicate to whichever devs are making the calls, explain the issue > > caused by the proposed changes, open and entertain dialogue, let all > > voices be heard and let sanity prevail. > >=20 > > You have consistently offered only two realistic options: their way or > > the highway. This presumes that the devs involved are impervious to the > > concept of dialogue at all, and cannot be contacted or swayed. > >=20 > > You see, none of that is true. There is *always* a third way and it is > > almost always the best possible route to follow. >=20 > In the case of Gentoo, the dialog is having place in the dev list, at > this very moment. In the case of Fedora (and, I think, OpenSuse), the > dialog is actually over. The Gentoo devs are just going with the flow. >=20 > (This is how I see things, I could have some facts wrong). Aha! This is I think where it went wrong. The Gentoo devs should *not* have gone with the flow. Giving the udev code= =20 primacy over the conventional FHS way, rather than spending some more time = to=20 sort out the genuine cause of the problem (udev) is something that in this= =20 case affects the Gentoo principle of doing it the 'Gentoo way' - more than= =20 binary distros who are already using initramfs. So this is a Gentoo user/use case argument more than upstream devs may care= to=20 examine. > It is not an arbitrary decision, and it is not from one developer > (this kind of things never are). The dialog happend (or is happening) > among those who construct the stack or the distributions. We have a > say, of course (we always do), but I don't really think that it should > be that important. I really, truly believe that the decision is (and > should be) in the hands of the people actually writing the code. You have made this point clear enough, but the way this has been decided=20 clearly cuts across the choice of freedom that Gentoo users had until now. People are getting upset and using an initramfs, repartitioning, or becomin= g=20 Linux developers overnight to write their own udev code is not a particular= ly=20 attractive option for most Gentoo users. > I think this is how Linux rose to be what it is today, and how it will > keep going on strong. Sometimes mistakes will be made, and some users > will be burned by them. >=20 > I (personally, IMHO, etc., etc.) don't think this is one of those > times. And that is way I'm expressing myself in this thread. =46air enough. It is evident that there are quite a few of us that disagre= e=20 with your view on this matter. I think that in this case some devs followed what is convenient or expedien= t,=20 rather than choosing a more purist/elegant approach that fixes what's broke= n=20 (udev) without affecting adversely the wider ecosystem. > That is all. I know what I say a lot of people don't like, but I think > it should be said, clear and loud. I believe that you have repeated your position enough times that we all get= =20 it. Your position though advocates a design solution which cuts across the= =20 Gentoo way of doing things. This makes Gentoo less valuable to some of us. =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart2891645.GkaWzqoYgh 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) iEYEABECAAYFAk5psJ4ACgkQVTDTR3kpaLYH2QCgk6erIpaBwIFnQegsJBgi2ZYT 2SoAoI++03+wOa1B7ooqrXSrVLsgph17 =+Pcm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2891645.GkaWzqoYgh--