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 1R32gi-00071b-QM for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:20:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7588E21C1FB; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:20:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C347E21C12E for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:18:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2011 09:18:44 -0000 Received: from p5B083DA8.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO pc.localnet) [91.8.61.168] by mail.gmx.net (mp041) with SMTP; 12 Sep 2011 11:18:44 +0200 X-Authenticated: #13997268 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/o/Ak240/ojNpamRvZorh1P8lvIPWJL7gAiQi+hz J7Lcuig2odpJ/w From: Michael Schreckenbauer To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /dev/sda* missing at boot Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:18:30 +0200 Message-ID: <2361178.mfYzYPtk2c@pc> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.1 (Linux/2.6.38-gentoo; KDE/4.7.1; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20110912084002.GA2433@nicolas-desktop> References: <201108191109.34984.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <2041021.Ne6GbGEXyK@pc> <20110912084002.GA2433@nicolas-desktop> 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: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: ccf68a75a8d02303d326f15cb53bbaa7 Hi, On Monday, 12. September 2011 10:40:02 Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > The 09/09/11, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: > > The question arose, when Canek mentioned bluetoothd, that udev seems to > > need in some cases. > > This is wrong. > udev on its own does not require extra tools from /usr. > Though, the rules used by udev do use software in /usr. It's NOT a udev > fault _at all_. Well, this is details. Where's the diffference from user-point-of-view, whether it's udev itself or some scripts executed by udev? And I tend to disagree, with the not udev's fault part. udev treats all exit-codes from scripts as if the device were not present. This includes errors of all kinds. How is this supposed to work at all? > So, what's the good way to fix all that mess? Certainly not moving most > of software to /. Fortunately, we can expect /usr to be mounted before > udev starts via the initramfs. That's *your* opinion. Most people on this list disagree. > It does NOT mean everybody will require a initramfs. It means people > WANTING a seperate /usr will need a initramfs. > The good thing is that a lot of tools now in / will be granted back to > /usr. Let's clean up /. Also, it's a _good_ news for admins expecting to > maintain systems with a shared /usr (e.g. over the network). Since when is a mandatory initramfs a good thing for admins? Care to explain? Regards, Michael