[gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Bruce Hill, Jr.]

 This item just appeared after eix-sync:

HTPC ~ # eselect news read
2012-03-16-udev-181-unmasking
  Title                     udev-181 unmasking
  Author                    William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
  Posted                    2012-03-16
  Revision                  1

udev-181 is being unmasked on 2012-03-19.

This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of
udev >=181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your
system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr.

An initramfs which does this is created by
>=sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25.1 or
>=sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be
sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr.

Also, if you are using OpenRC, you must upgrade to >= openrc-0.9.9.

For more information on why this has been done, see the following URL:
http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken



Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.

Houston, we have a problem!
--
Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
126 Fenco Drive            ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
support at happypenguincomputers dot com
http://www.happypenguincomputers.com

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
<daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>  This item just appeared after eix-sync:
>
> HTPC ~ # eselect news read
> 2012-03-16-udev-181-unmasking
>  Title                     udev-181 unmasking
>  Author                    William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
>  Posted                    2012-03-16
>  Revision                  1
>
> udev-181 is being unmasked on 2012-03-19.
>
> This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of
> udev >=181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your
> system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr.
>
> An initramfs which does this is created by
>>=sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25.1 or
>>=sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be
> sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr.
>
> Also, if you are using OpenRC, you must upgrade to >= openrc-0.9.9.
>
> For more information on why this has been done, see the following URL:
> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
>
>
>
> Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.
>
> Houston, we have a problem!

You can always try Walter's et. al. mdev replacement:

http://www.waltdnes.org/mdev/

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Bruce Hill, Jr.]

 --



On March 17, 2012 at 12:19 AM "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
> >
> >
> >
> > Happy Computer Users (for now), systemd is on your horizon.
> >
> > Houston, we have a problem!
>
> You can always try Walter's et. al. mdev replacement:
>
> http://www.waltdnes.org/mdev/


Sad fact is systemd will soon be required in Gentoo.

Forget the udev/mdev argument ... systemd is poorly coded, and we're
getting so much further from a good, reliable DE to compete with the likes
of Windows 7. Just horse manure DEs in Gentoo now.
--
Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
126 Fenco Drive            ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
support at happypenguincomputers dot com
http://www.happypenguincomputers.com

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
<daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>  --
>
>
>
> On March 17, 2012 at 12:19 AM "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Happy Computer Users (for now), systemd is on your horizon.
>> >
>> > Houston, we have a problem!
>>
>> You can always try Walter's et. al. mdev replacement:
>>
>> http://www.waltdnes.org/mdev/
>
>
> Sad fact is systemd will soon be required in Gentoo.

I don't think so. Not in the near future at least. Of course, *I*
don't think that will be a sad fact, but that's another matter :D

> Forget the udev/mdev argument ...

Oh, I have never cared that much for it ;)

> systemd is poorly coded,

Many people think that it tries to solve a problem that "doesn't
exists", or that it has failures in its design. However, even the more
fervent critics agree that Lennart is a really good programmer. You
are the first person I read saying that systemd is "poorly coded".

In other words: [citation needed]

> and we're
> getting so much further from a good, reliable DE to compete with the likes
> of Windows 7. Just horse manure DEs in Gentoo now.

I would say that we are actually better than them in several ways.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1389 bytes --]

On Mar 17, 2012 11:15 AM, "Bruce Hill, Jr." <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com>
wrote:
>
>  This item just appeared after eix-sync:
>
> HTPC ~ # eselect news read
> 2012-03-16-udev-181-unmasking
>  Title                     udev-181 unmasking
>  Author                    William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
>  Posted                    2012-03-16
>  Revision                  1
>
> udev-181 is being unmasked on 2012-03-19.
>
> This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of
> udev >=181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your
> system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr.
>
> An initramfs which does this is created by
> >=sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25.1 or
> >=sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be
> sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr.
>
> Also, if you are using OpenRC, you must upgrade to >= openrc-0.9.9.
>
> For more information on why this has been done, see the following URL:
> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
>
>
>
> Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.
>
> Houston, we have a problem!
>

All my servers are now happily running mdev, USE="-udev", and sys-fs/udev
in package.mask...

Houston... we've landed. And it's beautiful here... there's lots of work to
do to prepare the colony, but it's a whole new horizon... a new world! ;-)

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1970 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 17/03/12 06:11, Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote:
>   This item just appeared after eix-sync:
>
> HTPC ~ # eselect news read
> 2012-03-16-udev-181-unmasking
>    Title                     udev-181 unmasking
>    Author                    William Hubbs<williamh@gentoo.org>
>    Posted                    2012-03-16
>    Revision                  1
>
> udev-181 is being unmasked on 2012-03-19.
>
> This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of
> udev>=181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your
> system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr.
>
> An initramfs which does this is created by
>> =sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25.1 or
>> =sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be
> sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr.
>
> Also, if you are using OpenRC, you must upgrade to>= openrc-0.9.9.
>
> For more information on why this has been done, see the following URL:
> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
>
>
>
> Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.
>
> Houston, we have a problem!

No, we don't.  I hope systemd arrives soon.  It's the best init system I 
ever saw.

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Andrea Conti]

> This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of
> udev >=181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your
> system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr.

[...]

> Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.

The problem, if you really want to call this a problem, is with udev,
not OpenRC. Switching to systemd is not going to solve it.

Personally I stopped bothering with a separate /usr ages ago, so I don't
really care.

andrea

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Nikos.

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 08:25:48AM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:

> > Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.

> No, we don't.  I hope systemd arrives soon.  It's the best init system I 
> ever saw.

What's so good about it?  What will it do for me?

I have this horrible sneaking suspicion that it will be more complicated
than /sbin/init + OpenRC, just like udev + initramfs is more complicated
than udev, and CUPS is more complicated than classical lpr.

Why do you find it so good?

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello Bruce,

Thanks for the heads up.

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 12:11:23AM -0400, Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote:
>  This item just appeared after eix-sync:

> udev-181 is being unmasked on 2012-03-19.

Why is he in such a hurry?

> For more information on why this has been done, see the following URL:
> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken

Yuck!

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Bruce Hill, Jr.]

On March 17, 2012 at 4:00 AM Andrea Conti <alyf@alyf.net> wrote:

> > This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of
> > udev >=181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot
your
> > system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr.
>
> [...]
>
> > Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.
>
> The problem, if you really want to call this a problem, is with udev,
> not OpenRC. Switching to systemd is not going to solve it.
>
> Personally I stopped bothering with a separate /usr ages ago, so I don't
> really care.
>
> andrea
>

Bravo!

It's (systemd) the same mentality as those who started Ubuntu to attract
Windoze Weenies because Gentoo, or even Slackware, was too hard for them to
install.
--
Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
126 Fenco Drive            ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
support at happypenguincomputers dot com
http://www.happypenguincomputers.com

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Bruce Hill, Jr.]

On March 17, 2012 at 7:59 AM Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:

> Hello Bruce,
>
> Thanks for the heads up.
>
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 12:11:23AM -0400, Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote:
> >  This item just appeared after eix-sync:
>
> > udev-181 is being unmasked on 2012-03-19.
>
> Why is he in such a hurry?
>
> > For more information on why this has been done, see the following URL:
> > http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
>
> Yuck!
>
> --
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
>

This time, it truly is upstream.

They're rushing headlong to get all of us to use POS systems like Fedora
and Ubuntu.
--
Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
126 Fenco Drive            ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
support at happypenguincomputers dot com
http://www.happypenguincomputers.com

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Tanstaafl]

On 2012-03-17 12:11 AM, Bruce Hill, Jr. 
<daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
> An initramfs which does this is created by
>>=sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25.1 or
>>=sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be
> sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr.

Ok, I have never used genkernel, and have no desire to...

I have no idea what dracut is or how to use it...

I have a remote system that has /usr on a separate partition.

So...

How do I find out if I am actually *using* an initramfs right now (I 
know it is built into the kernel), and

If I am not, how do I do this without using genkernel? Is dracut t he 
only other option? Is it easy/trivial to set one up manually?

I cannot imagine that gentoo is just going to throw me to the wolves 
like this without providing *in-depth* instructions on how to make sure 
my system will boot after this update, like they did with the 
baselayout-2 update...

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Eliezer Croitoru]

On 17/03/2012 14:50, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2012-03-17 12:11 AM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
> <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>> An initramfs which does this is created by
>>> =sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25.1 or
>>> =sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be
>> sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr.
>
> Ok, I have never used genkernel, and have no desire to...
>
> I have no idea what dracut is or how to use it...
>
> I have a remote system that has /usr on a separate partition.
>
> So...
>
> How do I find out if I am actually *using* an initramfs right now (I
> know it is built into the kernel), and
>
> If I am not, how do I do this without using genkernel? Is dracut t he
> only other option? Is it easy/trivial to set one up manually?
>
> I cannot imagine that gentoo is just going to throw me to the wolves
> like this without providing *in-depth* instructions on how to make sure
> my system will boot after this update, like they did with the
> baselayout-2 update...
>
genkernel is pretty simple to use if you ask me.
just

emerege genkernel

and then use

genkerenl --menuconfig all

it will do everything for you the same as in a regular kernel compiling.

you have instructions on how to use genkernel on the handbook.

Regards,
Eliezer

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Peter Humphrey]

On Saturday 17 March 2012 12:54:53 Eliezer Croitoru wrote:

> genkernel is pretty simple to use if you ask me.
> just
> 
> emerege genkernel
> 
> and then use
> 
> genkerenl --menuconfig all
> 
> it will do everything for you the same as in a regular kernel
> compiling.
> 
> you have instructions on how to use genkernel on the handbook.

What's more, you don't have to keep going through menuconfig if you 
already have a running self-compiled kernel. Just copy the .config file to 
somewhere safe (I use, e.g. /boot/config-3.2) and call genkernel with the 
option to specify the config file it's to use. Sorry but I can't tell you 
exactly what the parameter is as I don't have genkernel on this box. 
Someone will be along in a moment though.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Jarry]

On 17-Mar-12 13:50, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2012-03-17 12:11 AM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
> <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>> An initramfs which does this is created by
>>> =sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25.1 or
>>> =sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be
>> sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr.
>
> Ok, I have never used genkernel, and have no desire to...
> I have no idea what dracut is or how to use it...
> I have a remote system that has /usr on a separate partition.
>
> So...
> How do I find out if I am actually *using* an initramfs right now (I
> know it is built into the kernel), and
> If I am not, how do I do this without using genkernel? Is dracut t he
> only other option? Is it easy/trivial to set one up manually?
>
> I cannot imagine that gentoo is just going to throw me to the wolves
> like this without providing *in-depth* instructions on how to make sure
> my system will boot after this update, like they did with the
> baselayout-2 update...

The same here. This news scared me a little! If during this "update"
some of my servers gets screwed up, I will have to travel 100 miles
to fix it on place. Not very nice perspective...

BTW, I'm not using genkernel and I can not use it. sys-kernel/dracut
is not stable yet, so this update going to be real pain in a**!
After baselayout 1>2 update I thought nothing worse can happen to me.
Now I see I was terribly wrong...

Jarry

-- 
_______________________________________________________________
This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists!
Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Mark Knecht]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
<daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>  This item just appeared after eix-sync:
>
> HTPC ~ # eselect news read
> 2012-03-16-udev-181-unmasking
>  Title                     udev-181 unmasking
>  Author                    William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
>  Posted                    2012-03-16
>  Revision                  1
>
> udev-181 is being unmasked on 2012-03-19.
>
> This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of
> udev >=181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your
> system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr.
>
> An initramfs which does this is created by
>>=sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25.1 or
>>=sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be
> sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr.
>
> Also, if you are using OpenRC, you must upgrade to >= openrc-0.9.9.
>
> For more information on why this has been done, see the following URL:
> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
>
>
>
> Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.
>
> Houston, we have a problem!
> --
> Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
> 126 Fenco Drive            ( \
> Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
> 662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
> support at happypenguincomputers dot com
> http://www.happypenguincomputers.com
>

Some comments from my limited, end-user, not-a-professional,
just-out-here-in-the-Ether, end-user point of view:

1) Unmasking udev-181 doesn't mean it becomes stable, so I am assuming
(for now) that since I run stable Gentoo this won't directly effect me
on Monday. Comments?

2) There's an extra danger lurking in that message that if they make
udev-181 stable and forget to make OpenRC-0.9.9 stable ahead of that
time then people are going to be in a world of pain.

3) I am going to mask both of these versions until the latest possible
date. Sorry, but I'll watch others struggle through the problems of
conversion on live machines. Boy, I don't look forward to those
threads.

4) I don't use a separate /usr so I don't need any of this. I suspect
most casual Gentoo users like me are pretty much the same.

4) I am going to look at doing a dual boot Gentoo install on some
system here at home to try this out. Damn, I don't have time for this
but what choice are they giving me. I'll continue to run stable but
look at ~amd64 for both OpenRC & udev, as well as possibly trying out
the mdev & systemd paths. I guess I'll be soliciting positives and
negatives about all the possibilities. The recent threads have been so
long that I lost track. Maybe someone will put together a Gentoo Wiki
page on udev vs mdev vs systemd vs OpenRC vs whatever I forgot?

5) If things work locally then (and this is a BIG maybe) maybe I'll
look at new dual-boot installs remotely. Those machines have plenty of
disk space. While my remote machines aren't globally important they
are what my parents now in their 80's use for web browsing & email.
Don't want them to be out of touch with the world.

6) Finally, this reminds me of the rush made to push MythTV to some
version that finally broke my hardware's compatibility which drove me
away from Myth and into the waiting arms of DirecTV. I hope that
doesn't happen with Gentoo overall. I understand devs don't want to
support old software. I just hope they realize that users aren't all
Linux superstars with unlimited time to mess with this stuff while
getting a pay check from someone else. Many of us are just normal
folk.

Over and out for now.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
> <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>>  This item just appeared after eix-sync:
>>
>> HTPC ~ # eselect news read
>> 2012-03-16-udev-181-unmasking
>>  Title                     udev-181 unmasking
>>  Author                    William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
>>  Posted                    2012-03-16
>>  Revision                  1
>>
>> udev-181 is being unmasked on 2012-03-19.
>>
>> This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of
>> udev >=181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your
>> system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr.
>>
>> An initramfs which does this is created by
>>>=sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25.1 or
>>>=sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be
>> sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr.
>>
>> Also, if you are using OpenRC, you must upgrade to >= openrc-0.9.9.
>>
>> For more information on why this has been done, see the following URL:
>> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
>>
>>
>>
>> Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.
>>
>> Houston, we have a problem!
>> --
>> Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
>> 126 Fenco Drive            ( \
>> Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
>> 662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
>> support at happypenguincomputers dot com
>> http://www.happypenguincomputers.com
>>
>
> Some comments from my limited, end-user, not-a-professional,
> just-out-here-in-the-Ether, end-user point of view:
>
> 1) Unmasking udev-181 doesn't mean it becomes stable, so I am assuming
> (for now) that since I run stable Gentoo this won't directly effect me
> on Monday. Comments?

That is correct. udev-181 is getting unmasked (removed from
/usr/portage/profiles/package.mask), not stabilized (it will remain
~x86/~amd64). For it to be keyworded amd64/x86, I would suspect it
will take *at least* a month, probably longer.

I would suspect that when it does get stabilized, the needed versions
of dracut/genkernel/openrc will get stabilized too.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Mark Knecht]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>>
>> 1) Unmasking udev-181 doesn't mean it becomes stable, so I am assuming
>> (for now) that since I run stable Gentoo this won't directly effect me
>> on Monday. Comments?
>
> That is correct. udev-181 is getting unmasked (removed from
> /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask), not stabilized (it will remain
> ~x86/~amd64). For it to be keyworded amd64/x86, I would suspect it
> will take *at least* a month, probably longer.
>
> I would suspect that when it does get stabilized, the needed versions
> of dracut/genkernel/openrc will get stabilized too.
>
> Regards.
> --
> Canek Peláez Valdés
> Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
> Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
>

Thanks Canek. That's my assumption.

Additionally, I'm going to guess that someone out there will make the
current udev available through an overlay going out a long time in the
future so I'm not really very worried about this today.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

you know, with that 'put everything into /usr' crap going on, I don't see any 
reason to have a seperate /usr at all. /root is completely empty. So what? Put 
everything on one partition and go on.

I will not use an initramfs if I can get away with it. 
-- 
#163933

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[pk]

On 2012-03-17 19:38, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> you know, with that 'put everything into /usr' crap going on, I don't see any 
> reason to have a seperate /usr at all. /root is completely empty. So what? Put 
> everything on one partition and go on.

Yes, let's do away with partitions altogether, who needs them? Let's
also get rid of directories, and come to think of it, let's put
everything into one binary file (kernel + userspace)! Perhaps we can
call it "initeverything"? Nice and tidy! Oh, better yet, let's put it
into the firmware (may need to expand current flash ROM though), that
way we can do away with harddrives (saving stuff in the volatile memory
instead)!

W00t?

> I will not use an initramfs if I can get away with it. 

See above...

PS. Keep this email away from Poettering and Sievert; don't want to give
them any ideas!

Best regards

Peter K, sarcasm trainee

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Am Samstag, 17. März 2012, 20:40:02 schrieb pk:
> On 2012-03-17 19:38, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > you know, with that 'put everything into /usr' crap going on, I don't see
> > any reason to have a seperate /usr at all. /root is completely empty. So
> > what? Put everything on one partition and go on.
> 
> Yes, let's do away with partitions altogether, who needs them? Let's
> also get rid of directories, and come to think of it, let's put
> everything into one binary file (kernel + userspace)! Perhaps we can
> call it "initeverything"? Nice and tidy! Oh, better yet, let's put it
> into the firmware (may need to expand current flash ROM though), that
> way we can do away with harddrives (saving stuff in the volatile memory
> instead)!
> 
> W00t?
> 
> > I will not use an initramfs if I can get away with it.
> 
> See above...
> 
> PS. Keep this email away from Poettering and Sievert; don't want to give
> them any ideas!
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Peter K, sarcasm trainee

seriously, you have seemed to miss some news. There is a move by redhat&co to 
move almost everything from / to /usr. With nothing left than some mountpoints 
- why put / on its own partition? There is nothing to contain apart from /etc. 

Your sarcasm fails because you think that there is an intrinsic reason to keep 
/ seperate. Well, with / filled with usefull binaries to bring a hosed system 
back from the garbage pile that was true for some peole. But with the current 
movement there isn't anything there at all. 

-- 

#163933

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:10:35 -0700
Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:

> 4) I don't use a separate /usr so I don't need any of this. I suspect
> most casual Gentoo users like me are pretty much the same.

This news item in no way applies to you and you are completely
unaffected. You can safely update openrc and udev.



-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[pk]

On 2012-03-17 21:09, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> seriously, you have seemed to miss some news. There is a move by redhat&co to 
> move almost everything from / to /usr. With nothing left than some mountpoints 
> - why put / on its own partition? There is nothing to contain apart from /etc. 

Nope, haven't missed a thing; I'm on the other side of the fence (of
course the _right_ side :-) ), where we can keep all our /bin /sbin /usr
directories separate and live happily everafter... ;-)

> Your sarcasm fails because you think that there is an intrinsic reason to keep 
> / seperate. Well, with / filled with usefull binaries to bring a hosed system 
> back from the garbage pile that was true for some peole. But with the current 
> movement there isn't anything there at all. 

You're correct in a sense; if I choose to accept the New World Order
(NWO) and put everything into /usr then you would be correct. As it
stands now, I'm going in the other direction (putting /, /usr, /var,
/home on separate harddrives)... :-D

But I guess Gentoo itself will adapt to the NWO eventually, unless (by
some miracle) some sanity is restored, so I'll have to find a new OS to
use (probably FreeBSD)...

Best regards

Peter K

[gentoo-user] Re: The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[»Q«]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:10:35 -0700
Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:

> 4) I don't use a separate /usr so I don't need any of this. I suspect
> most casual Gentoo users like me are pretty much the same.
> 
> 4) I am going to look at doing a dual boot Gentoo install on some
> system here at home to try this out. Damn, I don't have time for this
> but what choice are they giving me.

4 ;)  If your /usr doesn't have its own partition, you shouldn't need
to sweat any of this.  AIUI, only people with separate /usr need to
either build an initrd or work out an alternative to udev.

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Mark Knecht]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:10:35 -0700
> Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 4) I don't use a separate /usr so I don't need any of this. I suspect
>> most casual Gentoo users like me are pretty much the same.
>
> This news item in no way applies to you and you are completely
> unaffected. You can safely update openrc and udev.
>

Yeah, that was my reading of it, and I appreciate your response.

In this case, and I don't know why, I have this feeling that this
thing is gonna turn out badly and I'd be better being prepared on the
initramfs side of things. I did have to use one to bring up my server
with / on a RAID6, not because I needed it long term but in the short
term I couldn't determine how mdadm was numbering the RAID so that I
could get grub.conf correct. I'm somehow a bot worried something is
going to slip by the devs and I'd be better off having an initramfs
already running on the box when I do allow the upgrades.

Planning on giving Dracut a try.

Thanks,
Mark

[gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 17/03/12 13:53, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Hello, Nikos.
>
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 08:25:48AM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
>>> Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.
>
>> No, we don't.  I hope systemd arrives soon.  It's the best init system I
>> ever saw.
>
> What's so good about it?  What will it do for me?
>
> I have this horrible sneaking suspicion that it will be more complicated
> than /sbin/init + OpenRC, just like udev + initramfs is more complicated
> than udev, and CUPS is more complicated than classical lpr.
>
> Why do you find it so good?

No idea.  I only posted this because the OP didn't say what's bad about 
systemd :-)  I really don't know I should care whether my system runs 
OpenRC or systemd.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/03/12 13:53, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>> Hello, Nikos.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 08:25:48AM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>
>>>> Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.
>>
>>
>>> No, we don't.  I hope systemd arrives soon.  It's the best init system I
>>> ever saw.
>>
>>
>> What's so good about it?  What will it do for me?
>>
>> I have this horrible sneaking suspicion that it will be more complicated
>> than /sbin/init + OpenRC, just like udev + initramfs is more complicated
>> than udev, and CUPS is more complicated than classical lpr.
>>
>> Why do you find it so good?
>
>
> No idea.  I only posted this because the OP didn't say what's bad about
> systemd :-)  I really don't know I should care whether my system runs OpenRC
> or systemd.

Take this with a grain (or a kilo) of salt, since I'm obviously
biased, but IMHO this are systemd advantages over OpenRC:

* Really fast boot. OpenRC takes at least double the time that systemd
does when booting, easily verifiable. In my laptop systemd is twice as
fast as OpenRC; in my desktop is three times faster.

* Really parallel service startup: OpenRC has never been reliable on
parallel service startup; its documentation says it explicitly.

* Really simple service unit files: The service unit files are really
small, really simple, really easy to understand/modify. Compare the 9
lines of sshd.service:

$ cat /etc/systemd/system/sshd.service
[Unit]
Description=SSH Secure Shell Service
After=syslog.target

[Service]
ExecStart=/usr/sbin/sshd -D

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

with the 84 of /etc/init.d/sshd (80 without comments).

* Really good documentation: systemd has one of the best
documentations I have ever seen in *any* project. Everything (except
really new, experimental features) is documented, with manual pages
explaining everything. And besides, there are blog posts by Lennart
explaining in a more informal way how to do neat tricks with systemd.

* Really good in-site customization: The service unit files are
trivially overrided with custom ones for specific installations,
without needing to touch the ones installed by systemd or a program.
With OpenRC, if I modify a /etc/init.d file, chances are I need to
check out my next installation so I can see how the new file differs
from the old one, and adapt the changes to my customized version.

* All the goodies from Control Groups: You can use kernel cgroups to
monitor/control several properties of your daemons, out of the box,
almost no admin effort involved.

* It tries to unify Linux behaviour among distros (some can argue that
this is a bad thing): Using systemd, the same
configurations/techniques work the same in every distribution. No more
need to learn /etc/conf.d, /etc/sysconfig, /etc/default hacks by
different distros.

* Finally, and what I think is the most fundamental difference between
systemd and almost any other init system: The service unit files in
systemd are *declarative*; you tell the daemon *what* to do, not *how*
to do it. If the service files are shell scripts (like in
OpenRC/SysV), everything can spiral out of control really easily. And
it usually does (again, look at sshd; and that one is actully nicely
written, there are all kind of monsters out there abusing the power
that shell gives you).

These are the ones off the top of my head; but what I like the most
about systemd is that it just works, and that it makes a lot of sense
(at least to me).

Most of systemd features can be implemented in OpenRC (although the
speed difference will never be eliminated if OpenRC keeps using shell
files). My question is: why bother? systemd is already here, it
already works, and it's actually supported in Gentoo.

But again, remember that I'm biased: I keep an overlay to run Gentoo
systems with only systemd; no OpenRC, no baselayout, no SysV. You guys
can try it if you want:

http://xochitl.matem.unam.mx/~canek/gentoo-systemd-only/

Usual disclaimer: I take no responsibility if using my overlay results
in your systems asploding. That said, I'm using it on all my machines
without a hitch.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

[gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 18/03/12 03:45, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Nikos Chantziaras<realnc@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 17/03/12 13:53, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello, Nikos.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 08:25:48AM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.
>>>
>>>
>>>> No, we don't.  I hope systemd arrives soon.  It's the best init system I
>>>> ever saw.
>>>
>>>
>>> What's so good about it?  What will it do for me?
>>>
>>> I have this horrible sneaking suspicion that it will be more complicated
>>> than /sbin/init + OpenRC, just like udev + initramfs is more complicated
>>> than udev, and CUPS is more complicated than classical lpr.
>>>
>>> Why do you find it so good?
>>
>>
>> No idea.  I only posted this because the OP didn't say what's bad about
>> systemd :-)  I really don't know I should care whether my system runs OpenRC
>> or systemd.
>
> Take this with a grain (or a kilo) of salt, since I'm obviously
> biased, but IMHO this are systemd advantages over OpenRC:
>
>[...]
> * It tries to unify Linux behaviour among distros (some can argue that
> this is a bad thing): Using systemd, the same
> configurations/techniques work the same in every distribution. No more
> need to learn /etc/conf.d, /etc/sysconfig, /etc/default hacks by
> different distros.

Out of the things you listed, this strikes me as the most important. 
Linux really needs standards.  When I install software on Windows, it 
knows how to add its startup services.  On Linux, this is all manual 
work if your distro isn't supported, especially on Gentoo.  If there's 
no ebuild for it, you spend your whole day trying to make it work.

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[William Kenworthy]

On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 17:43 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:10:35 -0700
> > Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 4) I don't use a separate /usr so I don't need any of this. I suspect
> >> most casual Gentoo users like me are pretty much the same.
> >
> > This news item in no way applies to you and you are completely
> > unaffected. You can safely update openrc and udev.
> >
> 
> Yeah, that was my reading of it, and I appreciate your response.
> 
> In this case, and I don't know why, I have this feeling that this
> thing is gonna turn out badly and I'd be better being prepared on the
> initramfs side of things. I did have to use one to bring up my server
> with / on a RAID6, not because I needed it long term but in the short
> term I couldn't determine how mdadm was numbering the RAID so that I
> could get grub.conf correct. I'm somehow a bot worried something is
> going to slip by the devs and I'd be better off having an initramfs
> already running on the box when I do allow the upgrades.
> 
> Planning on giving Dracut a try.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark
> 

Definitely be careful! - I went the genkernel route and except for
laptops use LVM and separate partitions.

Be very wary of using an existing kernel config - there are a few
unexpected things that I had to enable to get an already working, but
customised kernel config to boot properly after genkernel used it.  I
still need to cut the config down some more to speed booting (restrict
the autodetect to hardware I actually have).

genkernel doesnt support suspend/resume without patching so beware if
thats a consideration.

I do get the feeling I now have a less reliable, flakier system with
more demands on admin time because everytime I upgrade I will have more
issues.  I might eventually do away with the separate /usr if they ever
get it read only and reliable, but thats likely to a way off yet and
none of my machines use a big enough (non LVM) / to hold it anyway.

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4900 bytes --]

On Mar 18, 2012 8:48 AM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > On 17/03/12 13:53, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello, Nikos.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 08:25:48AM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.
> >>
> >>
> >>> No, we don't.  I hope systemd arrives soon.  It's the best init
system I
> >>> ever saw.
> >>
> >>
> >> What's so good about it?  What will it do for me?
> >>
> >> I have this horrible sneaking suspicion that it will be more
complicated
> >> than /sbin/init + OpenRC, just like udev + initramfs is more
complicated
> >> than udev, and CUPS is more complicated than classical lpr.
> >>
> >> Why do you find it so good?
> >
> >
> > No idea.  I only posted this because the OP didn't say what's bad about
> > systemd :-)  I really don't know I should care whether my system runs
OpenRC
> > or systemd.
>
> Take this with a grain (or a kilo) of salt, since I'm obviously
> biased, but IMHO this are systemd advantages over OpenRC:
>
> * Really fast boot. OpenRC takes at least double the time that systemd
> does when booting, easily verifiable. In my laptop systemd is twice as
> fast as OpenRC; in my desktop is three times faster.
>
> * Really parallel service startup: OpenRC has never been reliable on
> parallel service startup; its documentation says it explicitly.
>
> * Really simple service unit files: The service unit files are really
> small, really simple, really easy to understand/modify. Compare the 9
> lines of sshd.service:
>
> $ cat /etc/systemd/system/sshd.service
> [Unit]
> Description=SSH Secure Shell Service
> After=syslog.target
>
> [Service]
> ExecStart=/usr/sbin/sshd -D
>
> [Install]
> WantedBy=multi-user.target
>
> with the 84 of /etc/init.d/sshd (80 without comments).
>
> * Really good documentation: systemd has one of the best
> documentations I have ever seen in *any* project. Everything (except
> really new, experimental features) is documented, with manual pages
> explaining everything. And besides, there are blog posts by Lennart
> explaining in a more informal way how to do neat tricks with systemd.
>
> * Really good in-site customization: The service unit files are
> trivially overrided with custom ones for specific installations,
> without needing to touch the ones installed by systemd or a program.
> With OpenRC, if I modify a /etc/init.d file, chances are I need to
> check out my next installation so I can see how the new file differs
> from the old one, and adapt the changes to my customized version.
>
> * All the goodies from Control Groups: You can use kernel cgroups to
> monitor/control several properties of your daemons, out of the box,
> almost no admin effort involved.
>
> * It tries to unify Linux behaviour among distros (some can argue that
> this is a bad thing): Using systemd, the same
> configurations/techniques work the same in every distribution. No more
> need to learn /etc/conf.d, /etc/sysconfig, /etc/default hacks by
> different distros.
>
> * Finally, and what I think is the most fundamental difference between
> systemd and almost any other init system: The service unit files in
> systemd are *declarative*; you tell the daemon *what* to do, not *how*
> to do it. If the service files are shell scripts (like in
> OpenRC/SysV), everything can spiral out of control really easily. And
> it usually does (again, look at sshd; and that one is actully nicely
> written, there are all kind of monsters out there abusing the power
> that shell gives you).
>
> These are the ones off the top of my head; but what I like the most
> about systemd is that it just works, and that it makes a lot of sense
> (at least to me).
>
> Most of systemd features can be implemented in OpenRC (although the
> speed difference will never be eliminated if OpenRC keeps using shell
> files). My question is: why bother? systemd is already here, it
> already works, and it's actually supported in Gentoo.
>
> But again, remember that I'm biased: I keep an overlay to run Gentoo
> systems with only systemd; no OpenRC, no baselayout, no SysV. You guys
> can try it if you want:
>
> http://xochitl.matem.unam.mx/~canek/gentoo-systemd-only/
>
> Usual disclaimer: I take no responsibility if using my overlay results
> in your systems asploding. That said, I'm using it on all my machines
> without a hitch.
>
> Regards.

Interesting...

However, what if the service is complex? For example, I created a
"gatewall" service which, upon boot, initializes :

* Routing tables and the RPDB
* ipset
* iptables

while ensuring that upon shutdown, the settings of the above are
(optionally) saved.

How do I specify such intelligence?

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6072 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>
> On Mar 18, 2012 8:48 AM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On 17/03/12 13:53, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hello, Nikos.
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 08:25:48AM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> No, we don't.  I hope systemd arrives soon.  It's the best init system
>> >>> I
>> >>> ever saw.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What's so good about it?  What will it do for me?
>> >>
>> >> I have this horrible sneaking suspicion that it will be more
>> >> complicated
>> >> than /sbin/init + OpenRC, just like udev + initramfs is more
>> >> complicated
>> >> than udev, and CUPS is more complicated than classical lpr.
>> >>
>> >> Why do you find it so good?
>> >
>> >
>> > No idea.  I only posted this because the OP didn't say what's bad about
>> > systemd :-)  I really don't know I should care whether my system runs
>> > OpenRC
>> > or systemd.
>>
>> Take this with a grain (or a kilo) of salt, since I'm obviously
>> biased, but IMHO this are systemd advantages over OpenRC:
>>
>> * Really fast boot. OpenRC takes at least double the time that systemd
>> does when booting, easily verifiable. In my laptop systemd is twice as
>> fast as OpenRC; in my desktop is three times faster.
>>
>> * Really parallel service startup: OpenRC has never been reliable on
>> parallel service startup; its documentation says it explicitly.
>>
>> * Really simple service unit files: The service unit files are really
>> small, really simple, really easy to understand/modify. Compare the 9
>> lines of sshd.service:
>>
>> $ cat /etc/systemd/system/sshd.service
>> [Unit]
>> Description=SSH Secure Shell Service
>> After=syslog.target
>>
>> [Service]
>> ExecStart=/usr/sbin/sshd -D
>>
>> [Install]
>> WantedBy=multi-user.target
>>
>> with the 84 of /etc/init.d/sshd (80 without comments).
>>
>> * Really good documentation: systemd has one of the best
>> documentations I have ever seen in *any* project. Everything (except
>> really new, experimental features) is documented, with manual pages
>> explaining everything. And besides, there are blog posts by Lennart
>> explaining in a more informal way how to do neat tricks with systemd.
>>
>> * Really good in-site customization: The service unit files are
>> trivially overrided with custom ones for specific installations,
>> without needing to touch the ones installed by systemd or a program.
>> With OpenRC, if I modify a /etc/init.d file, chances are I need to
>> check out my next installation so I can see how the new file differs
>> from the old one, and adapt the changes to my customized version.
>>
>> * All the goodies from Control Groups: You can use kernel cgroups to
>> monitor/control several properties of your daemons, out of the box,
>> almost no admin effort involved.
>>
>> * It tries to unify Linux behaviour among distros (some can argue that
>> this is a bad thing): Using systemd, the same
>> configurations/techniques work the same in every distribution. No more
>> need to learn /etc/conf.d, /etc/sysconfig, /etc/default hacks by
>> different distros.
>>
>> * Finally, and what I think is the most fundamental difference between
>> systemd and almost any other init system: The service unit files in
>> systemd are *declarative*; you tell the daemon *what* to do, not *how*
>> to do it. If the service files are shell scripts (like in
>> OpenRC/SysV), everything can spiral out of control really easily. And
>> it usually does (again, look at sshd; and that one is actully nicely
>> written, there are all kind of monsters out there abusing the power
>> that shell gives you).
>>
>> These are the ones off the top of my head; but what I like the most
>> about systemd is that it just works, and that it makes a lot of sense
>> (at least to me).
>>
>> Most of systemd features can be implemented in OpenRC (although the
>> speed difference will never be eliminated if OpenRC keeps using shell
>> files). My question is: why bother? systemd is already here, it
>> already works, and it's actually supported in Gentoo.
>>
>> But again, remember that I'm biased: I keep an overlay to run Gentoo
>> systems with only systemd; no OpenRC, no baselayout, no SysV. You guys
>> can try it if you want:
>>
>> http://xochitl.matem.unam.mx/~canek/gentoo-systemd-only/
>>
>> Usual disclaimer: I take no responsibility if using my overlay results
>> in your systems asploding. That said, I'm using it on all my machines
>> without a hitch.
>>
>> Regards.
>
> Interesting...
>
> However, what if the service is complex? For example, I created a "gatewall"
> service which, upon boot, initializes :
>
> * Routing tables and the RPDB
> * ipset
> * iptables
>
> while ensuring that upon shutdown, the settings of the above are
> (optionally) saved.
>
> How do I specify such intelligence?

Well, first of all you have options for starting a service, but also
for stopping it. But besides that, please understand that while
systemd does not use shell files *itself*, it doesn't stop you from
using them if you so desire. In other words, put the "intelligence" on
a script:

/usr/local/bin/my-really-smart-and-complex-script.sh

With proper execution settings (i.e., chmod 755 and with "#!/bin/sh"
shebang), and then add a service file that exec's that:

# cat /etc/systemd/system/mycomplexscript.service
[Unit]
Description=My complex script
After=basic.target

[Service]
ExecStart=/usr/local/bin/my-really-smart-and-complex-script.sh

Then you only run:

# systemctl daemon-reload

And you start your script with:

# systemctl start mycomplexscript.service

If you want to enable it by default, add a link to it in
/etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants, or add an install
section:

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

And enable it with systemctl (after daemon-reload again):

# systemctl enable mycomplexscript.service

systemd doesn't stop you from using scripts. But, if the service is
properly designed, it shouldn't be necessary. For example, you could
probably break your complex script in small service unit files, and
make them depend among each other, so the correct startup sequence is
achieved.

Check the docs, it's really amazing.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Joshua Murphy]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/03/12 03:45, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> [...]
>>
>> * It tries to unify Linux behaviour among distros (some can argue that
>> this is a bad thing): Using systemd, the same
>> configurations/techniques work the same in every distribution. No more
>> need to learn /etc/conf.d, /etc/sysconfig, /etc/default hacks by
>> different distros.
>
>
> Out of the things you listed, this strikes me as the most important. Linux
> really needs standards.  When I install software on Windows, it knows how to
> add its startup services.  On Linux, this is all manual work if your distro
> isn't supported, especially on Gentoo.  If there's no ebuild for it, you
> spend your whole day trying to make it work.
>
>

My day job's on the windows side of things... and as true as it is
that the application developer knows the approach they're going to use
today to get their piece of software to start when windows does (as
often as not, doing so without the knowledge of the user), there's a
*massive* range of ways to do just that, and they *do* vary as you
move from one version of windows to the next... and tracking down
what's actually starting at boot (and why) without tools explicitly
created to give that information is an incredible amount of work on
the side of the user and even the usual admin. I'm not sure I'd cite
that as a positive benefit on the windows side of things...

-- 
Poison [BLX]
Joshua M. Murphy

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Bruce Hill, Jr.]

On March 17, 2012 at 8:48 PM Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 17/03/12 13:53, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > Hello, Nikos.
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 08:25:48AM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> >
> >>> Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.
> >
> >> No, we don't.  I hope systemd arrives soon.  It's the best init system
I
> >> ever saw.
> >
> > What's so good about it?  What will it do for me?
> >
> > I have this horrible sneaking suspicion that it will be more
complicated
> > than /sbin/init + OpenRC, just like udev + initramfs is more
complicated
> > than udev, and CUPS is more complicated than classical lpr.
> >
> > Why do you find it so good?
>
> No idea.  I only posted this because the OP didn't say what's bad about
> systemd :-)  I really don't know I should care whether my system runs
> OpenRC or systemd.
>
>


I'm the OP, and often I don't know how to express myself.

It is my understanding that systemd is going to force an initramfs on you
even if you only have / and no other partitions. (Could it be initrd and
not initramfs?)

I'm all for automounting a device when it's plugged in, if that's what the
user chooses. But for me, with my workstation, laptop, wife's PC and
daughter's laptop -- we just don't need or care for it. Seems a shame to be
using udev and then have to completely change your system when 181 comes
out, or freeze it at .

Therefore, we don't install anything to automount devices. We have lines
such as these in fstab:

UUID=6C5F-3742    /Libby-Vivitar   vfat
noauto,users,rw,gid=100,dmask=0002,fmask=0113  0 0

for those devices we own. When we get a new device, we add a new line.

We don't use a DE either, just Fluxbox.

The bottom line is that I don't like things being forced on me (hint, "get
the vaseline, they're on the way!") And I don't like upstream forcing such
nefarious changes on the distros. And for the Lennart fanboi, his coding is
so questionable that "Lennartware" has become derogatory slang. (Of course,
you already know that.)
--
Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
126 Fenco Drive            ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
support at happypenguincomputers dot com
http://www.happypenguincomputers.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2237 bytes --]

On Mar 18, 2012 9:44 AM, "Joshua Murphy" <poisonbl@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > On 18/03/12 03:45, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >>
> <snip>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> * It tries to unify Linux behaviour among distros (some can argue that
> >> this is a bad thing): Using systemd, the same
> >> configurations/techniques work the same in every distribution. No more
> >> need to learn /etc/conf.d, /etc/sysconfig, /etc/default hacks by
> >> different distros.
> >
> >
> > Out of the things you listed, this strikes me as the most important.
Linux
> > really needs standards.  When I install software on Windows, it knows
how to
> > add its startup services.  On Linux, this is all manual work if your
distro
> > isn't supported, especially on Gentoo.  If there's no ebuild for it, you
> > spend your whole day trying to make it work.
> >
> >
>
> My day job's on the windows side of things... and as true as it is
> that the application developer knows the approach they're going to use
> today to get their piece of software to start when windows does (as
> often as not, doing so without the knowledge of the user), there's a
> *massive* range of ways to do just that, and they *do* vary as you
> move from one version of windows to the next... and tracking down
> what's actually starting at boot (and why) without tools explicitly
> created to give that information is an incredible amount of work on
> the side of the user and even the usual admin. I'm not sure I'd cite
> that as a positive benefit on the windows side of things...
>

True, that.

Case in point : a couple of months back, I had great trouble trying to
start the server service *after* the iSCSI service. Finally have to resort
on a script starting using Windows Scheduler (post-boot event)

On Linux, I *know* where services are started. The locations might be
different from one distro to another, but within one distro, there's
(usually) only 2 ways a service get started.

Plus, as a server guy, I don't really care if the boot up process is
faster; I need deterministic boot process, with as succinct instrumentation
as possible.

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2734 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
<daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On March 17, 2012 at 8:48 PM Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17/03/12 13:53, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> > Hello, Nikos.
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 08:25:48AM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.
>> >
>> >> No, we don't.  I hope systemd arrives soon.  It's the best init system
> I
>> >> ever saw.
>> >
>> > What's so good about it?  What will it do for me?
>> >
>> > I have this horrible sneaking suspicion that it will be more
> complicated
>> > than /sbin/init + OpenRC, just like udev + initramfs is more
> complicated
>> > than udev, and CUPS is more complicated than classical lpr.
>> >
>> > Why do you find it so good?
>>
>> No idea.  I only posted this because the OP didn't say what's bad about
>> systemd :-)  I really don't know I should care whether my system runs
>> OpenRC or systemd.
>>
>>
>
>
> I'm the OP, and often I don't know how to express myself.
>
> It is my understanding that systemd is going to force an initramfs on you
> even if you only have / and no other partitions. (Could it be initrd and
> not initramfs?)
>
> I'm all for automounting a device when it's plugged in, if that's what the
> user chooses. But for me, with my workstation, laptop, wife's PC and
> daughter's laptop -- we just don't need or care for it. Seems a shame to be
> using udev and then have to completely change your system when 181 comes
> out, or freeze it at .
>
> Therefore, we don't install anything to automount devices. We have lines
> such as these in fstab:
>
> UUID=6C5F-3742    /Libby-Vivitar   vfat
> noauto,users,rw,gid=100,dmask=0002,fmask=0113  0 0
>
> for those devices we own. When we get a new device, we add a new line.
>
> We don't use a DE either, just Fluxbox.
>
> The bottom line is that I don't like things being forced on me (hint, "get
> the vaseline, they're on the way!") And I don't like upstream forcing such
> nefarious changes on the distros. And for the Lennart fanboi, his coding is
> so questionable that "Lennartware" has become derogatory slang. (Of course,
> you already know that.)

No need to get personal man, relax.

I'm getting my PhD in Computer Science, and worked several years as
professional programmer. In my not-so-limited experience, Lennart's
code is clean, fast, and usually does what he says it will do. So, no,
I don't "already" know that. You could argue about the overall design,
or what goals his code has, but its quality you are the only one
questioning it.

So again, please, [citation needed]. You still haven't provided any
reference to support your claim that Lennart's code (specifically
systemd's code) is "poorly" done.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Bruce Hill, Jr.]

On March 17, 2012 at 9:45 PM "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com>
wrote:


> But again, remember that I'm biased: I keep an overlay to run Gentoo
> systems with only systemd; no OpenRC, no baselayout, no SysV. You guys
> can try it if you want:
>
> http://xochitl.matem.unam.mx/~canek/gentoo-systemd-only/
>
> Usual disclaimer: I take no responsibility if using my overlay results
> in your systems asploding. That said, I'm using it on all my machines
> without a hitch.
>
> Regards.
> --
> Canek Peláez Valdés

Okay, I'm game. Monday (time and work flow permitting) I plan on building a
new PC and installing Gentoo, and replacing the mechanical drive in this
Lenovo T420 with a SSD.

Far be it from me to be guilty of "contempt prior to investigation."

Therefore, I'll follow your referenced guide above and do at least one of
these installs with systemd. If there is anything out of sync with present
stage3 tarballs and portage, it would be great if you could update your
docs. The last 2 new installs this week are running Python3.2, and with
zero time to actually work on it, I'm submitting even sloppy bug reports to
BGO. (Just ran across another app tonight which won't build with >python2.)
--
Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
126 Fenco Drive            ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
support at happypenguincomputers dot com
http://www.happypenguincomputers.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
<daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On March 17, 2012 at 9:45 PM "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> But again, remember that I'm biased: I keep an overlay to run Gentoo
>> systems with only systemd; no OpenRC, no baselayout, no SysV. You guys
>> can try it if you want:
>>
>> http://xochitl.matem.unam.mx/~canek/gentoo-systemd-only/
>>
>> Usual disclaimer: I take no responsibility if using my overlay results
>> in your systems asploding. That said, I'm using it on all my machines
>> without a hitch.
>>
>> Regards.
>> --
>> Canek Peláez Valdés
>
> Okay, I'm game. Monday (time and work flow permitting) I plan on building a
> new PC and installing Gentoo, and replacing the mechanical drive in this
> Lenovo T420 with a SSD.
>
> Far be it from me to be guilty of "contempt prior to investigation."
>
> Therefore, I'll follow your referenced guide above and do at least one of
> these installs with systemd. If there is anything out of sync with present
> stage3 tarballs and portage, it would be great if you could update your
> docs. The last 2 new installs this week are running Python3.2, and with
> zero time to actually work on it, I'm submitting even sloppy bug reports to
> BGO. (Just ran across another app tonight which won't build with >python2.)

If you want to test systemd, you don't need to use my overlay; and
actually, I would not recommend it: it's made thinking for people
already using systemd.

Just follow the wiki instructions: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Systemd

I don't want you to get the wrong idea because of my possible
mistakes: use systemd for Gentoo as the Gentoo devs have planned it.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Bruce Hill, Jr.]

On March 17, 2012 at 8:43 PM Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
> initramfs side of things. I did have to use one to bring up my server
> with / on a RAID6, not because I needed it long term but in the short
> term I couldn't determine how mdadm was numbering the RAID so that I
> could get grub.conf correct. I'm somehow a bot worried something is
> going to slip by the devs and I'd be better off having an initramfs
> already running on the box when I do allow the upgrades.
>
> Planning on giving Dracut a try.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>


The real short of this is that if you use 0.90 superblocks, and /boot on
it's own little partition, your kernel can assembly your
RAID<whateverlevel> without an initrd image. You will reboot with the
/dev/md0 you created as /dev/md0. And unless you have partitions (or is it
single drives) over 2TB, you can use metadata=0.90.

As they say, Works For Me (R).

I've yet to read a simple explanation of HOW-TO do this in a Gentoo doc
(not that it doesn't exist), but you can follow this very simple
README_RAID used in Slackware to build them on Gentoo:

http://slackware.oregonstate.edu/slackware64-current/README_RAID.TXT
--
Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
126 Fenco Drive            ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
support at happypenguincomputers dot com
http://www.happypenguincomputers.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Bruce Hill, Jr.]

On March 17, 2012 at 10:57 PM "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
> <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On March 17, 2012 at 8:48 PM Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> >> On 17/03/12 13:53, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> >> > Hello, Nikos.
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 08:25:48AM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.
> >> >
> >> >> No, we don't.  I hope systemd arrives soon.  It's the best init
system
> > I
> >> >> ever saw.
> >> >
> >> > What's so good about it?  What will it do for me?
> >> >
> >> > I have this horrible sneaking suspicion that it will be more
> > complicated
> >> > than /sbin/init + OpenRC, just like udev + initramfs is more
> > complicated
> >> > than udev, and CUPS is more complicated than classical lpr.
> >> >
> >> > Why do you find it so good?
> >>
> >> No idea.  I only posted this because the OP didn't say what's bad
about
> >> systemd :-)  I really don't know I should care whether my system runs
> >> OpenRC or systemd.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'm the OP, and often I don't know how to express myself.
> >
> > It is my understanding that systemd is going to force an initramfs on
you
> > even if you only have / and no other partitions. (Could it be initrd
and
> > not initramfs?)
> >
> > I'm all for automounting a device when it's plugged in, if that's what
the
> > user chooses. But for me, with my workstation, laptop, wife's PC and
> > daughter's laptop -- we just don't need or care for it. Seems a shame
to be
> > using udev and then have to completely change your system when 181
comes
> > out, or freeze it at .
> >
> > Therefore, we don't install anything to automount devices. We have
lines
> > such as these in fstab:
> >
> > UUID=6C5F-3742    /Libby-Vivitar   vfat
> > noauto,users,rw,gid=100,dmask=0002,fmask=0113  0 0
> >
> > for those devices we own. When we get a new device, we add a new line.
> >
> > We don't use a DE either, just Fluxbox.
> >
> > The bottom line is that I don't like things being forced on me (hint,
"get
> > the vaseline, they're on the way!") And I don't like upstream forcing
such
> > nefarious changes on the distros. And for the Lennart fanboi, his
coding is
> > so questionable that "Lennartware" has become derogatory slang. (Of
course,
> > you already know that.)
>
> No need to get personal man, relax.

I disagree ... there's every reason to get personal. Not getting personal
doesn't assign the blame. Men stand up and take responsibility for their
actions.

> I'm getting my PhD in Computer Science
<snip>

I got my PhD in life before your parents met. So what? Just saying...

> So again, please, [citation needed]. You still haven't provided any
> reference to support your claim that Lennart's code (specifically
> systemd's code) is "poorly" done.

Mate, have you heard of the world wide web? The internet?

> Regards.
> --
> Canek Peláez Valdés

Seriously, mate ... are you his boyfriend, on his payroll, related, or
what?

You search LKML for yourself. I've been there since 2003 and have numerous
memories.

How about:
http://www.change.org/petitions/lennart-poettering-stop-writing-useless-programs-systemd-journal

Sorry, mate ... many of us here are allergic to FUD <:-)}
--
Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
126 Fenco Drive            ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
support at happypenguincomputers dot com
http://www.happypenguincomputers.com

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Michael Mol]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
<daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On March 17, 2012 at 8:43 PM Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> initramfs side of things. I did have to use one to bring up my server
>> with / on a RAID6, not because I needed it long term but in the short
>> term I couldn't determine how mdadm was numbering the RAID so that I
>> could get grub.conf correct. I'm somehow a bot worried something is
>> going to slip by the devs and I'd be better off having an initramfs
>> already running on the box when I do allow the upgrades.
>>
>> Planning on giving Dracut a try.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>>
>
>
> The real short of this is that if you use 0.90 superblocks, and /boot on
> it's own little partition, your kernel can assembly your
> RAID<whateverlevel> without an initrd image. You will reboot with the
> /dev/md0 you created as /dev/md0. And unless you have partitions (or is it
> single drives) over 2TB, you can use metadata=0.90.
>
> As they say, Works For Me (R).
>
> I've yet to read a simple explanation of HOW-TO do this in a Gentoo doc
> (not that it doesn't exist), but you can follow this very simple
> README_RAID used in Slackware to build them on Gentoo:
>
> http://slackware.oregonstate.edu/slackware64-current/README_RAID.TXT

I recall reading on this list a week or two ago that kernel
autoassembly of 0.90 arrays was deprecated. :(

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Bruce Hill, Jr.]

On March 18, 2012 at 2:30 AM Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
> <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On March 17, 2012 at 8:43 PM Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >> initramfs side of things. I did have to use one to bring up my server
> >> with / on a RAID6, not because I needed it long term but in the short
> >> term I couldn't determine how mdadm was numbering the RAID so that I
> >> could get grub.conf correct. I'm somehow a bot worried something is
> >> going to slip by the devs and I'd be better off having an initramfs
> >> already running on the box when I do allow the upgrades.
> >>
> >> Planning on giving Dracut a try.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Mark
> >>
> >
> >
> > The real short of this is that if you use 0.90 superblocks, and /boot
on
> > it's own little partition, your kernel can assembly your
> > RAID<whateverlevel> without an initrd image. You will reboot with the
> > /dev/md0 you created as /dev/md0. And unless you have partitions (or is
it
> > single drives) over 2TB, you can use metadata=0.90.
> >
> > As they say, Works For Me (R).
> >
> > I've yet to read a simple explanation of HOW-TO do this in a Gentoo doc
> > (not that it doesn't exist), but you can follow this very simple
> > README_RAID used in Slackware to build them on Gentoo:
> >
> > http://slackware.oregonstate.edu/slackware64-current/README_RAID.TXT
>
> I recall reading on this list a week or two ago that kernel
> autoassembly of 0.90 arrays was deprecated. :(
>
> --
> :wq
>

Works on my computers.
--
Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
126 Fenco Drive            ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
support at happypenguincomputers dot com
http://www.happypenguincomputers.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
<daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On March 17, 2012 at 10:57 PM "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
>> <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On March 17, 2012 at 8:48 PM Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 17/03/12 13:53, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> >> > Hello, Nikos.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 08:25:48AM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>> Happy Computer Users, systemd is on your horizon.
>> >> >
>> >> >> No, we don't.  I hope systemd arrives soon.  It's the best init
> system
>> > I
>> >> >> ever saw.
>> >> >
>> >> > What's so good about it?  What will it do for me?
>> >> >
>> >> > I have this horrible sneaking suspicion that it will be more
>> > complicated
>> >> > than /sbin/init + OpenRC, just like udev + initramfs is more
>> > complicated
>> >> > than udev, and CUPS is more complicated than classical lpr.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why do you find it so good?
>> >>
>> >> No idea.  I only posted this because the OP didn't say what's bad
> about
>> >> systemd :-)  I really don't know I should care whether my system runs
>> >> OpenRC or systemd.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm the OP, and often I don't know how to express myself.
>> >
>> > It is my understanding that systemd is going to force an initramfs on
> you
>> > even if you only have / and no other partitions. (Could it be initrd
> and
>> > not initramfs?)
>> >
>> > I'm all for automounting a device when it's plugged in, if that's what
> the
>> > user chooses. But for me, with my workstation, laptop, wife's PC and
>> > daughter's laptop -- we just don't need or care for it. Seems a shame
> to be
>> > using udev and then have to completely change your system when 181
> comes
>> > out, or freeze it at .
>> >
>> > Therefore, we don't install anything to automount devices. We have
> lines
>> > such as these in fstab:
>> >
>> > UUID=6C5F-3742    /Libby-Vivitar   vfat
>> > noauto,users,rw,gid=100,dmask=0002,fmask=0113  0 0
>> >
>> > for those devices we own. When we get a new device, we add a new line.
>> >
>> > We don't use a DE either, just Fluxbox.
>> >
>> > The bottom line is that I don't like things being forced on me (hint,
> "get
>> > the vaseline, they're on the way!") And I don't like upstream forcing
> such
>> > nefarious changes on the distros. And for the Lennart fanboi, his
> coding is
>> > so questionable that "Lennartware" has become derogatory slang. (Of
> course,
>> > you already know that.)
>>
>> No need to get personal man, relax.
>
> I disagree ... there's every reason to get personal. Not getting personal
> doesn't assign the blame. Men stand up and take responsibility for their
> actions.

You called me "Lennart fanboi". That wasn't personal?

>> I'm getting my PhD in Computer Science
> <snip>
>
> I got my PhD in life before your parents met. So what? Just saying...

I'm not bragging; I just explained my credentials as to why I say that
Lennart's code is actually quite good. Because I have actually studied
it, besides tried it. Have you? And, are you gonna keep saying you are
not getting personal, by the way?

>> So again, please, [citation needed]. You still haven't provided any
>> reference to support your claim that Lennart's code (specifically
>> systemd's code) is "poorly" done.
>
> Mate, have you heard of the world wide web? The internet?

And "the Internet" has always the same opinion. And it's never wrong.

> Seriously, mate ... are you his boyfriend, on his payroll, related, or
> what?

No, I don't even know him. Are you gonna keep saying you are not
getting personal, by the way?

> You search LKML for yourself. I've been there since 2003 and have numerous
> memories.

Me too. Lennart has actually code accepted into the Linux Kernel, and
he's a member of the Linux Kernel Plumbers. How's that as  proof of
the quality of his code?

> How about:
> http://www.change.org/petitions/lennart-poettering-stop-writing-useless-programs-systemd-journal

Really? A petition on-line? With 235 votes? That's the best reference
you can present?

On one side, we have a guy whose code is included in all the levels on
the stack, from kernel to end-user application. On the other, we have
an open internet petition with 235 votes.

Yeah, I'm gonna side with the on-line poll.

> Sorry, mate ... many of us here are allergic to FUD <:-)}

I would say that you are allergic to Lennart's work. But I'm pretty
sure that you haven't take the time at least once to actually study it
or at least try it, and given the level of discussion you present, I'm
starting to think you don't actually have the capacity to study it.
So, in that sense, the one spreading the FUD is you.

All I keep saying is that I use systemd (and udev, and GNOME 3), and
that I like it, and that I agree with the technical decisions behind
it.

That's it. Of course you don't have to agree with me (as I don't agree
with you). But at least I'm not resort to name-calling, and I actually
have tried (and studied) both systemd and OpenRC (which is the topic
of this particular branch of the thread we are in).

I'm out of this thread. As always, I give my opinion, do whatever you
want with it.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Michael Mol]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
<daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On March 18, 2012 at 2:30 AM Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
>> <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On March 17, 2012 at 8:43 PM Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >> initramfs side of things. I did have to use one to bring up my server
>> >> with / on a RAID6, not because I needed it long term but in the short
>> >> term I couldn't determine how mdadm was numbering the RAID so that I
>> >> could get grub.conf correct. I'm somehow a bot worried something is
>> >> going to slip by the devs and I'd be better off having an initramfs
>> >> already running on the box when I do allow the upgrades.
>> >>
>> >> Planning on giving Dracut a try.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Mark
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > The real short of this is that if you use 0.90 superblocks, and /boot
> on
>> > it's own little partition, your kernel can assembly your
>> > RAID<whateverlevel> without an initrd image. You will reboot with the
>> > /dev/md0 you created as /dev/md0. And unless you have partitions (or is
> it
>> > single drives) over 2TB, you can use metadata=0.90.
>> >
>> > As they say, Works For Me (R).
>> >
>> > I've yet to read a simple explanation of HOW-TO do this in a Gentoo doc
>> > (not that it doesn't exist), but you can follow this very simple
>> > README_RAID used in Slackware to build them on Gentoo:
>> >
>> > http://slackware.oregonstate.edu/slackware64-current/README_RAID.TXT
>>
>> I recall reading on this list a week or two ago that kernel
>> autoassembly of 0.90 arrays was deprecated. :(
>>
>> --
>> :wq
>>
>
> Works on my computers.

And mine. But 'deprecated' means 'this may go away in the future'.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Graham Murray]

Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> writes:

> * Really simple service unit files: The service unit files are really
> small, really simple, really easy to understand/modify. Compare the 9
> lines of sshd.service:
>
> $ cat /etc/systemd/system/sshd.service
> [Unit]
> Description=SSH Secure Shell Service
> After=syslog.target
>
> [Service]
> ExecStart=/usr/sbin/sshd -D
>
> [Install]
> WantedBy=multi-user.target
>
> with the 84 of /etc/init.d/sshd (80 without comments).

But the 80 lines of /etc/init.d/sshd  do a lot more than just and stop
the service. They ensure that there is an sshd configuration file and
give a meaningful message (including where to find the sample) if it is
not present, and check for the presence of the hostkeys (again which are
needed) and create them if they are not present. Your 9 lines of
sshd.service do none of this.
 

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Walter Dnes]

> For more information on why this has been done, see the following URL:
> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken

  s/separate-usr/systemd and udev/

  Too bad I'm not a developer.  If udev and systemd become mandatory on
Gentoo, I'll seriously consider LFS (Linux From Scratch).  Maybe even
BSD.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Graham Murray <graham@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> * Really simple service unit files: The service unit files are really
>> small, really simple, really easy to understand/modify. Compare the 9
>> lines of sshd.service:
>>
>> $ cat /etc/systemd/system/sshd.service
>> [Unit]
>> Description=SSH Secure Shell Service
>> After=syslog.target
>>
>> [Service]
>> ExecStart=/usr/sbin/sshd -D
>>
>> [Install]
>> WantedBy=multi-user.target
>>
>> with the 84 of /etc/init.d/sshd (80 without comments).
>
> But the 80 lines of /etc/init.d/sshd  do a lot more than just and stop
> the service.

Yes, it does.

> They ensure that there is an sshd configuration file and
> give a meaningful message (including where to find the sample) if it is
> not present, and check for the presence of the hostkeys (again which are
> needed) and create them if they are not present. Your 9 lines of
> sshd.service do none of this.

That is completely true. I also think that those checks does not
belong into the init script: I think the configuration file presence
should be guarantee by the package manager at install time, and so the
creation of the hostkeys.

Having said that, systemd provides ConditionPathExists, which allows
you to set a file as necessary for a service execution. So my 9 lines
transform into

$ cat /etc/systemd/system/sshd.service
[Unit]
Description=SSH Secure Shell Service
After=syslog.target
ConditionPathExists=/etc/ssh/sshd_config

[Service]
ExecStart=/usr/sbin/sshd -D

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

If the config file doesn't exists, the service will not start, and you
can check the reason why with

systemctl status sshd.service

And of course you can set another mini sevice unit file to create the
hostkeys. But I repeat: I think those tasks belong into the package
manager, no the init script.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Dale]

pk wrote:
> On 2012-03-17 21:09, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> 
>> seriously, you have seemed to miss some news. There is a move by redhat&co to 
>> move almost everything from / to /usr. With nothing left than some mountpoints 
>> - why put / on its own partition? There is nothing to contain apart from /etc. 
> 
> Nope, haven't missed a thing; I'm on the other side of the fence (of
> course the _right_ side :-) ), where we can keep all our /bin /sbin /usr
> directories separate and live happily everafter... ;-)
> 
>> Your sarcasm fails because you think that there is an intrinsic reason to keep 
>> / seperate. Well, with / filled with usefull binaries to bring a hosed system 
>> back from the garbage pile that was true for some peole. But with the current 
>> movement there isn't anything there at all. 
> 
> You're correct in a sense; if I choose to accept the New World Order
> (NWO) and put everything into /usr then you would be correct. As it
> stands now, I'm going in the other direction (putting /, /usr, /var,
> /home on separate harddrives)... :-D
> 
> But I guess Gentoo itself will adapt to the NWO eventually, unless (by
> some miracle) some sanity is restored, so I'll have to find a new OS to
> use (probably FreeBSD)...
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Peter K
> 
> 


I been thinking about that *BSD stuff lately.  Hmmmmm, maybe I need to
do some research on this and give it a try.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Saturday 17 March 2012 12:54:53 Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> 
>> genkernel is pretty simple to use if you ask me.
>> just
>>
>> emerege genkernel
>>
>> and then use
>>
>> genkerenl --menuconfig all
>>
>> it will do everything for you the same as in a regular kernel
>> compiling.
>>
>> you have instructions on how to use genkernel on the handbook.
> 
> What's more, you don't have to keep going through menuconfig if you 
> already have a running self-compiled kernel. Just copy the .config file to 
> somewhere safe (I use, e.g. /boot/config-3.2) and call genkernel with the 
> option to specify the config file it's to use. Sorry but I can't tell you 
> exactly what the parameter is as I don't have genkernel on this box. 
> Someone will be along in a moment though.
> 


I used genkernel when I was first installing Gentoo.  I let that thing
build half a dozen kernels, chroot in between too.  You know what, not
one of them worked.  That was a long time ago but let me check something
here.  < spit spit spit >  I had to get the bad taste out of my mouth.  lol

I might also add, I started using a init thingy a few weeks ago, dracut
tool.  For some crazy reason, when I boot with the init thingy, my
system doesn't work right.  When I boot without the init thingy, it
works fine.  Still trying to figure out that one.  It's in another thread.

I don't see myself using genkernel any time soon.  Right now, I'm having
flashbacks to hal with regard to dracut and the whole init thingy /usr
mess.

Dale

:-)  :-)


-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1510 bytes --]

On Mar 18, 2012 3:52 PM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If the config file doesn't exists, the service will not start, and you
> can check the reason why with
>
> systemctl status sshd.service
>
> And of course you can set another mini sevice unit file to create the
> hostkeys. But I repeat: I think those tasks belong into the package
> manager, no the init script.
>

Between installation by package manager and actual execution by the init
system, things might happen on the required file(s). Gentoo's initscript
guards against this possibility *plus* providing helpful error messages in
/var/rc.log

Or, said configuration files might be corrupted; the OpenRC initscript --
if written defensively -- will be able to detect that and (perhaps)
fallback to something sane. systemd can't do that, short of putting all
required intelligence into a script which it executes on boot.

Now, if one has to put all the intelligence into a script file which gets
executed by systemd, that results in a system that's more complex than
plain OpenRC. Not only would one need to maintain the starting script, but
one must also maintain systemd + dbus.

So, the *only* benefit I can see about systemd is the smarter parallel
startup of services. And believe me if I say that server guys (the ones
handling tens or even hundreds of servers) would much prefer sequential
startup of services than parallel ones. The former is deterministic, the
latter is not.

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1689 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[walt]

On 03/17/2012 12:40 PM, pk wrote:
> On 2012-03-17 19:38, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> you know, with that 'put everything into /usr' crap going on, I don't see any 
>> reason to have a seperate /usr at all. /root is completely empty. So what? Put 
>> everything on one partition and go on.
> 
> Yes, let's do away with partitions altogether, who needs them?

When I was in school the (Winchester) disk drives were the size of
a hotel mini-bar and the, um, "diskettes" the size of a stack of
four or five large pizza boxes which had to be carried with both
hands.

I never asked how much these toys cost, but I'm guessing it would
be roughly a year's salary for most people.  Now multiply that by
the number of partitions you need to mount simultaneously.

That was the reason for separate / and /usr back then -- the school
didn't want to buy multiple Winchesters when they could get the
sysadmin to swap multiple "diskettes" during bootup, and let the
student health service cover the cost of his hernia repair :p

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Bruce Hill, Jr.]

On March 18, 2012 at 3:54 AM Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I recall reading on this list a week or two ago that kernel
> >> autoassembly of 0.90 arrays was deprecated. :(
> >>
> >> --
> >> :wq
> >>
> >
> > Works on my computers.
>
> And mine. But 'deprecated' means 'this may go away in the future'.

My question ... who says it's deprecated and why?
--

Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
126 Fenco Drive            ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
support at happypenguincomputers dot com
http://www.happypenguincomputers.com

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Am Sonntag, 18. März 2012, 08:01:59 schrieb Bruce Hill, Jr.:
> On March 18, 2012 at 3:54 AM Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I recall reading on this list a week or two ago that kernel
> > >> autoassembly of 0.90 arrays was deprecated. :(
> > >> 
> > >> --
> > >> 
> > >> :wq
> > > 
> > > Works on my computers.
> > 
> > And mine. But 'deprecated' means 'this may go away in the future'.
> 
> My question ... who says it's deprecated and why?

the kernel devs because the kernel might get it wrong and for some reason they 
think that this is worse then mdadm getting it wrong. Which is of course 
bullshit because either way you are f*cked.


> --
> 
> Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
> 126 Fenco Drive            ( \
> Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
> 662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
> support at happypenguincomputers dot com
> http://www.happypenguincomputers.com
-- 
#163933

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 04:51:54 -0500
Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> I been thinking about that *BSD stuff lately.  Hmmmmm, maybe I need to
> do some research on this and give it a try.

Give it a try, you might be pleasantly surprised.

For single purpose servers, FreeBSD beats Linux hands down almost every
time. I switched all the company servers I could over to FreeBSD (ftp,
mail, web, auth - basically everything that isn't running Oracle,
Sybase or some other proprietary software with license constraints).

Suddenly, all manner of maintenance issues just went away. But I rather
suspect that's more because they moved away from SLES than moving away
from Linux :-)

*BSD on the desktop is an altogether different story though.

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:45:06 -0600
Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:

> * Finally, and what I think is the most fundamental difference between
> systemd and almost any other init system: The service unit files in
> systemd are *declarative*; you tell the daemon *what* to do, not *how*
> to do it. If the service files are shell scripts (like in
> OpenRC/SysV), everything can spiral out of control really easily. And
> it usually does (again, look at sshd; and that one is actully nicely
> written, there are all kind of monsters out there abusing the power
> that shell gives you).

I'm having a wet dream right about now :-)

init has been my pet peeve for years, starting with sysvinit. Why do I
need 9 runlevels all fully configured, when me, my machines, the
company's server, every Linux user in the company and every other use I
have ever personally met, only use 1 of them? Let's not even discuss
the amount of complexity that gets pushed into the init scripts
themselves.

Here's what I want:

When the machine starts, I want services X, Y and Z to run. The
software figures out what order they must start in and how the deps
work. Clean, neat, easy.

Maintenance mode is handled easily with two stages in startup:
early_start and late_start. Maintenance mode is what you have between
them. Again - nice, clean and simple.

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Bruce Hill, Jr.]

On March 18, 2012 at 8:47 AM Volker Armin Hemmann
<volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Am Sonntag, 18. März 2012, 08:01:59 schrieb Bruce Hill, Jr.:
> > On March 18, 2012 at 3:54 AM Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> I recall reading on this list a week or two ago that kernel
> > > >> autoassembly of 0.90 arrays was deprecated. :(
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >> :wq
> > > >
> > > > Works on my computers.
> > >
> > > And mine. But 'deprecated' means 'this may go away in the future'.
> >
> > My question ... who says it's deprecated and why?
>
> the kernel devs because the kernel might get it wrong and for some reason
they
> think that this is worse then mdadm getting it wrong. Which is of course
> bullshit because either way you are f*cked.

It works better in kernel than userspace presently, and doesn't require a
nasty initrd image, so I'm sticking with that.

Might you post from LKML where said "kernel devs" deprecated kernel
assembly of RAID us 0.90 metadata?
--

Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
126 Fenco Drive            ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
support at happypenguincomputers dot com
http://www.happypenguincomputers.com

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Mark Knecht]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
<daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On March 17, 2012 at 8:43 PM Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> initramfs side of things. I did have to use one to bring up my server
>> with / on a RAID6, not because I needed it long term but in the short
>> term I couldn't determine how mdadm was numbering the RAID so that I
>> could get grub.conf correct. I'm somehow a bot worried something is
>> going to slip by the devs and I'd be better off having an initramfs
>> already running on the box when I do allow the upgrades.
>>
>> Planning on giving Dracut a try.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>>
>
>
> The real short of this is that if you use 0.90 superblocks

I do not use 0.90 metadata here.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Mark Knecht]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> I recall reading on this list a week or two ago that kernel
> autoassembly of 0.90 arrays was deprecated. :(
>
> --
> :wq
>

I don't know about 'depreciated' as that has a sort of special
meaning, but Neil Brown has been moving away from it for a long time I
think.

0.90 auto-assembly does still work TTBOMK.

- Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 04:51:54 -0500
> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I been thinking about that *BSD stuff lately.  Hmmmmm, maybe I need to
>> do some research on this and give it a try.
> 
> Give it a try, you might be pleasantly surprised.
> 
> For single purpose servers, FreeBSD beats Linux hands down almost every
> time. I switched all the company servers I could over to FreeBSD (ftp,
> mail, web, auth - basically everything that isn't running Oracle,
> Sybase or some other proprietary software with license constraints).
> 
> Suddenly, all manner of maintenance issues just went away. But I rather
> suspect that's more because they moved away from SLES than moving away
> from Linux :-)
> 
> *BSD on the desktop is an altogether different story though.
> 


I did install a BSD once a long time ago.  I thought about making a
homemade router and read it was one secure puppy.  Well, when I set my
password, I guess something was on/off like numlock/caps lock because I
never could get the password to work after I rebooted.  I couldn't find
a way around it so I stopped playing with since I didn't want to install
it again.  So dang secure I couldn't get in and IT WAS MINE.  o_O

I have read where people say it is not real desktop friendly, as in KDE
type desktop stuff.

While at it, check out my other thread about KDE and permissions.  I
think my init thingy has broke something.  I'm looking for ideas.  I
planned on at least giving this a shot but if it is going to break
before I even get started, switching may come sooner rather than later.
 The short post that mentions the init thing is the latest.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:45:06 -0600
> Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> * Finally, and what I think is the most fundamental difference between
>> systemd and almost any other init system: The service unit files in
>> systemd are *declarative*; you tell the daemon *what* to do, not *how*
>> to do it. If the service files are shell scripts (like in
>> OpenRC/SysV), everything can spiral out of control really easily. And
>> it usually does (again, look at sshd; and that one is actully nicely
>> written, there are all kind of monsters out there abusing the power
>> that shell gives you).
> 
> I'm having a wet dream right about now :-)
> 
> init has been my pet peeve for years, starting with sysvinit. Why do I
> need 9 runlevels all fully configured, when me, my machines, the
> company's server, every Linux user in the company and every other use I
> have ever personally met, only use 1 of them? Let's not even discuss
> the amount of complexity that gets pushed into the init scripts
> themselves.
> 
> Here's what I want:
> 
> When the machine starts, I want services X, Y and Z to run. The
> software figures out what order they must start in and how the deps
> work. Clean, neat, easy.
> 
> Maintenance mode is handled easily with two stages in startup:
> early_start and late_start. Maintenance mode is what you have between
> them. Again - nice, clean and simple.
> 


Well, I am not normal.  I, on a regular basis, use single, boot and
default runlevels.  So there !!  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Am Sonntag, 18. März 2012, 09:23:00 schrieb Bruce Hill, Jr.:
> On March 18, 2012 at 8:47 AM Volker Armin Hemmann
> 
> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 18. März 2012, 08:01:59 schrieb Bruce Hill, Jr.:
> > > On March 18, 2012 at 3:54 AM Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> I recall reading on this list a week or two ago that kernel
> > > > >> autoassembly of 0.90 arrays was deprecated. :(
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> :wq
> > > > > 
> > > > > Works on my computers.
> > > > 
> > > > And mine. But 'deprecated' means 'this may go away in the future'.
> > > 
> > > My question ... who says it's deprecated and why?
> > 
> > the kernel devs because the kernel might get it wrong and for some reason
> 
> they
> 
> > think that this is worse then mdadm getting it wrong. Which is of course
> > bullshit because either way you are f*cked.
> 
> It works better in kernel than userspace presently, and doesn't require a
> nasty initrd image, so I'm sticking with that.
> 
> Might you post from LKML where said "kernel devs" deprecated kernel
> assembly of RAID us 0.90 metadata?

no, but I might remember another thread on lkml that discussed autoassemble. 
Be free to waste lots of time:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-raid&m=126592924232390&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=linux-raid&m=126628146211758&w=2

-- 
#163933

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Tanstaafl]

On 2012-03-17 8:54 AM, Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> wrote:
> genkernel is pretty simple to use if you ask me.
> just
>
> emerege genkernel

Thanks, but... what part of "I have never used genkernel, and have no 
desire to..." did you not understand?

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Tanstaafl]

On 2012-03-18 9:29 AM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know about 'depreciated' as that has a sort of special
> meaning,

<pet-peeve>
it is deprecATED, not deprecIated
</pet-peeve>

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Eliezer Croitoru]

On 18/03/2012 11:52, Dale wrote:
> Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> On Saturday 17 March 2012 12:54:53 Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
>>
>>> genkernel is pretty simple to use if you ask me.
>>> just
>>>
>>> emerege genkernel
>>>
>>> and then use
>>>
>>> genkerenl --menuconfig all
>>>
>>> it will do everything for you the same as in a regular kernel
>>> compiling.
>>>
>>> you have instructions on how to use genkernel on the handbook.
>>
>> What's more, you don't have to keep going through menuconfig if you
>> already have a running self-compiled kernel. Just copy the .config file to
>> somewhere safe (I use, e.g. /boot/config-3.2) and call genkernel with the
>> option to specify the config file it's to use. Sorry but I can't tell you
>> exactly what the parameter is as I don't have genkernel on this box.
>> Someone will be along in a moment though.
>>
>
>
> I used genkernel when I was first installing Gentoo.  I let that thing
> build half a dozen kernels, chroot in between too.  You know what, not
> one of them worked.  That was a long time ago but let me check something
> here.<  spit spit spit>   I had to get the bad taste out of my mouth.  lol
>
> I might also add, I started using a init thingy a few weeks ago, dracut
> tool.  For some crazy reason, when I boot with the init thingy, my
> system doesn't work right.  When I boot without the init thingy, it
> works fine.  Still trying to figure out that one.  It's in another thread.
>
> I don't see myself using genkernel any time soon.  Right now, I'm having
> flashbacks to hal with regard to dracut and the whole init thingy /usr
> mess.
i have used genkernel for a long time and all of my genkernel 
compilation works really good.
i have (counting, 1 very very big production server, 2 small production 
server, 3 home server, 4 +5 +6 + 7 +8 of vms runing genkernel with 
several services such as mail mail filtering web server and monitoring)
so what can i say? all these machines will say other then you.

Regards,
Eliezer

>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>
> On Mar 18, 2012 3:52 PM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If the config file doesn't exists, the service will not start, and you
>> can check the reason why with
>>
>> systemctl status sshd.service
>>
>> And of course you can set another mini sevice unit file to create the
>> hostkeys. But I repeat: I think those tasks belong into the package
>> manager, no the init script.
>>
>
> Between installation by package manager and actual execution by the init
> system, things might happen on the required file(s). Gentoo's initscript
> guards against this possibility *plus* providing helpful error messages in
> /var/rc.log
>
> Or, said configuration files might be corrupted; the OpenRC initscript -- if
> written defensively -- will be able to detect that and (perhaps) fallback to
> something sane. systemd can't do that, short of putting all required
> intelligence into a script which it executes on boot.

That is a completely valid point, but I don't think that task belongs
into the init system. The init system starts and stops services, and
monitors them; checking for configuration files and creating hostkeys
is part of the installation process. If something got corrupted
between installation time and now, I would prefer my init system not
to start a service; just please tell me that something is wrong.

However, it's of course debatible. I agree with systemd's behavior;
it's cleaner, more elegant, and it follows the Unix tradition: do one
thing, and doing it right.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Michael Mol]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2012 3:52 PM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If the config file doesn't exists, the service will not start, and you
>>> can check the reason why with
>>>
>>> systemctl status sshd.service
>>>
>>> And of course you can set another mini sevice unit file to create the
>>> hostkeys. But I repeat: I think those tasks belong into the package
>>> manager, no the init script.
>>>
>>
>> Between installation by package manager and actual execution by the init
>> system, things might happen on the required file(s). Gentoo's initscript
>> guards against this possibility *plus* providing helpful error messages in
>> /var/rc.log
>>
>> Or, said configuration files might be corrupted; the OpenRC initscript -- if
>> written defensively -- will be able to detect that and (perhaps) fallback to
>> something sane. systemd can't do that, short of putting all required
>> intelligence into a script which it executes on boot.
>
> That is a completely valid point, but I don't think that task belongs
> into the init system. The init system starts and stops services, and
> monitors them; checking for configuration files and creating hostkeys
> is part of the installation process. If something got corrupted
> between installation time and now, I would prefer my init system not
> to start a service; just please tell me that something is wrong.
>
> However, it's of course debatible. I agree with systemd's behavior;
> it's cleaner, more elegant, and it follows the Unix tradition: do one
> thing, and doing it right.

I like and see benefit to the systemd approach, honestly, but I don't
think it necessarily follows to say that "that belongs in the
installation process, since it shouldn't be the responsibility of the
init process."

The way things sit currently, Gentoo doesn't default to adding new
services to any runlevel, and in the process of setting up or
reconfiguring a system, services may be added, removed, then possibly
added again. Having a service's launch script perform one-time checks
makes perfect sense in this regard. It's lazy evaluation; you don't do
non-trivial work until you know it needs to be done. (And generating a
2048-bit or 4096-bit SSH key certainly qualifies as non-trivial work!)

Also, I think the "code golf" argument is a poor one; how many lines
something does to meet some particular goal ignores any other intended
goals the compared object also meets. When you're comparing apples to
apples, the argument is fine. When you're comparing apples to oranges,
the argument is weakened; they're both fruits, but they still have
different purposes in the larger context.

In this case, I think the happy medium would be for systemd to start a
service-provided launch script, which performs whatever additional
checks are wanted or desired. Either way, it's the responsibility of
whoever maintains the package for that service.


-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 13:25:32 -0600
Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Or, said configuration files might be corrupted; the OpenRC
> > initscript -- if written defensively -- will be able to detect that
> > and (perhaps) fallback to something sane. systemd can't do that,
> > short of putting all required intelligence into a script which it
> > executes on boot.  
> 
> That is a completely valid point, but I don't think that task belongs
> into the init system. The init system starts and stops services, and
> monitors them; checking for configuration files and creating hostkeys
> is part of the installation process. If something got corrupted
> between installation time and now, I would prefer my init system not
> to start a service; just please tell me that something is wrong.

I tend to agree. All most no daemons and services out there check that
their config files are not corrupt. At most they do syntax
checking, throw errors and leave it up to the caller to deal with it in
some appropriate manner. Most often, the caller is a human with a shell.

Same with sshd and all that checking that happens in the init script.
That stuff correctly belongs in the ebuild config phase, or as an
ad-hoc action done by the sysadmin whenever {,s}he feel like it. The
major point being, if the software itself does not perform a certain
check, then the launching script should also not concern itself with
those checks.

[There are exceptions of course, some stuff is brain-dead, like
tac_plus. Nice software, but if it can't write to it's own log files,
it silently stops working and doesn't tell you. To all intents it looks
like it works fine, but doesn't. Presumably, openssh does not fall in
that category of brain-dead software]

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2081 bytes --]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 01:25:32PM -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 18, 2012 3:52 PM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> If the config file doesn't exists, the service will not start, and you
> >> can check the reason why with
> >>
> >> systemctl status sshd.service
> >>
> >> And of course you can set another mini sevice unit file to create the
> >> hostkeys. But I repeat: I think those tasks belong into the package
> >> manager, no the init script.
> >>
> >
> > Between installation by package manager and actual execution by the init
> > system, things might happen on the required file(s). Gentoo's initscript
> > guards against this possibility *plus* providing helpful error messages in
> > /var/rc.log
> >
> > Or, said configuration files might be corrupted; the OpenRC initscript -- if
> > written defensively -- will be able to detect that and (perhaps) fallback to
> > something sane. systemd can't do that, short of putting all required
> > intelligence into a script which it executes on boot.
> 
> That is a completely valid point, but I don't think that task belongs
> into the init system. The init system starts and stops services, and
> monitors them;

That I can agree upon.

> checking for configuration files and creating hostkeys
> is part of the installation process.

But not this. Installation is a one-time event whose lifetime is over once
installation is done.

> If something got corrupted between installation time and now, I would prefer
> my init system not to start a service; just please tell me that something is
> wrong.

Obviously, a service itself knows best about its own config files. So *it*
should check for the files and if they are invalid/non-existent, it should
abort starting and notify the init system.
-- 
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla'
I forbid any use of my email addresses with Facebook services.

Today’s stress is the good old times of the day after tomorrow.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Dale]

Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> On 18/03/2012 11:52, Dale wrote:
>> Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>> On Saturday 17 March 2012 12:54:53 Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
>>>
>>>> genkernel is pretty simple to use if you ask me.
>>>> just
>>>>
>>>> emerege genkernel
>>>>
>>>> and then use
>>>>
>>>> genkerenl --menuconfig all
>>>>
>>>> it will do everything for you the same as in a regular kernel
>>>> compiling.
>>>>
>>>> you have instructions on how to use genkernel on the handbook.
>>>
>>> What's more, you don't have to keep going through menuconfig if you
>>> already have a running self-compiled kernel. Just copy the .config
>>> file to
>>> somewhere safe (I use, e.g. /boot/config-3.2) and call genkernel with
>>> the
>>> option to specify the config file it's to use. Sorry but I can't tell
>>> you
>>> exactly what the parameter is as I don't have genkernel on this box.
>>> Someone will be along in a moment though.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I used genkernel when I was first installing Gentoo.  I let that thing
>> build half a dozen kernels, chroot in between too.  You know what, not
>> one of them worked.  That was a long time ago but let me check something
>> here.<  spit spit spit>   I had to get the bad taste out of my mouth. 
>> lol
>>
>> I might also add, I started using a init thingy a few weeks ago, dracut
>> tool.  For some crazy reason, when I boot with the init thingy, my
>> system doesn't work right.  When I boot without the init thingy, it
>> works fine.  Still trying to figure out that one.  It's in another
>> thread.
>>
>> I don't see myself using genkernel any time soon.  Right now, I'm having
>> flashbacks to hal with regard to dracut and the whole init thingy /usr
>> mess.
> i have used genkernel for a long time and all of my genkernel
> compilation works really good.
> i have (counting, 1 very very big production server, 2 small production
> server, 3 home server, 4 +5 +6 + 7 +8 of vms runing genkernel with
> several services such as mail mail filtering web server and monitoring)
> so what can i say? all these machines will say other then you.
> 
> Regards,
> Eliezer
> 
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>>

Odd, it can work on all those yet fail on a relatively simple system.
Makes one wonder.  Maybe it is to complicated?  Sort of starting to
sound like udev isn't it?  lol

I didn't say it would fail for the OP.  I just said it never worked for
me.  Compiling my own has worked for me.  I have only had one failure
with that.  I might also add, I have read where others have nightmares
about genkernel.  I'm not the only one.

Dale

:-)  :-)


-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Walter Dnes]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 03:15:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote

> Here's what I want:
> 
> When the machine starts, I want services X, Y and Z to run. The
> software figures out what order they must start in and how the deps
> work. Clean, neat, easy.

  systemd is like Captain Picard of STTNG (Start Trek The Next
Generation) always saying "make it so".  *HOW DO YOU "MAKE IT SO"?  That
intelligence has to be somewhere.  So what alternative do you propose?
A bash or ash script is more guaranteed to run than a binary.  Shoving
all that "intelligence" into the service itself, means that the service
has to start up in order to determine whether it's safe for the service
to start up.  What's wrong with this picture?

  And if systemd is so great, here's my supersystemd

#!/bin/bash
...
...
/etc/init.d/net.lo start
/etc/init.d/net.eth0 start
/etc/init.d/net.sshd start
etc, etc, etc

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:39:59 -0500
Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> > On 18/03/2012 11:52, Dale wrote:
> >> Peter Humphrey wrote:
> >>> On Saturday 17 March 2012 12:54:53 Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> genkernel is pretty simple to use if you ask me.
> >>>> just
> >>>>
> >>>> emerege genkernel
> >>>>
> >>>> and then use
> >>>>
> >>>> genkerenl --menuconfig all
> >>>>
> >>>> it will do everything for you the same as in a regular kernel
> >>>> compiling.
> >>>>
> >>>> you have instructions on how to use genkernel on the handbook.
> >>>
> >>> What's more, you don't have to keep going through menuconfig if
> >>> you already have a running self-compiled kernel. Just copy
> >>> the .config file to
> >>> somewhere safe (I use, e.g. /boot/config-3.2) and call genkernel
> >>> with the
> >>> option to specify the config file it's to use. Sorry but I can't
> >>> tell you
> >>> exactly what the parameter is as I don't have genkernel on this
> >>> box. Someone will be along in a moment though.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I used genkernel when I was first installing Gentoo.  I let that
> >> thing build half a dozen kernels, chroot in between too.  You know
> >> what, not one of them worked.  That was a long time ago but let me
> >> check something here.<  spit spit spit>   I had to get the bad
> >> taste out of my mouth. lol
> >>
> >> I might also add, I started using a init thingy a few weeks ago,
> >> dracut tool.  For some crazy reason, when I boot with the init
> >> thingy, my system doesn't work right.  When I boot without the
> >> init thingy, it works fine.  Still trying to figure out that one.
> >> It's in another thread.
> >>
> >> I don't see myself using genkernel any time soon.  Right now, I'm
> >> having flashbacks to hal with regard to dracut and the whole init
> >> thingy /usr mess.
> > i have used genkernel for a long time and all of my genkernel
> > compilation works really good.
> > i have (counting, 1 very very big production server, 2 small
> > production server, 3 home server, 4 +5 +6 + 7 +8 of vms runing
> > genkernel with several services such as mail mail filtering web
> > server and monitoring) so what can i say? all these machines will
> > say other then you.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Eliezer
> > 
> >>
> >> Dale
> >>
> >> :-)  :-)
> >>
> 
> Odd, it can work on all those yet fail on a relatively simple system.
> Makes one wonder.  Maybe it is to complicated?  Sort of starting to
> sound like udev isn't it?  lol
> 
> I didn't say it would fail for the OP.  I just said it never worked
> for me.  Compiling my own has worked for me.  I have only had one
> failure with that.  I might also add, I have read where others have
> nightmares about genkernel.  I'm not the only one.

And using genkernel is pretty fucking pointless while it doesn't
support suspend/resume right.

Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I don;t use genkernel so
don;t know the truth from experience. I only read what others say,
claiming that genkernel doesn't support suspend/resume.




-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:23:37 -0400
"Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 03:15:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
> 
> > Here's what I want:
> > 
> > When the machine starts, I want services X, Y and Z to run. The
> > software figures out what order they must start in and how the deps
> > work. Clean, neat, easy.
> 
>   systemd is like Captain Picard of STTNG (Start Trek The Next
> Generation) always saying "make it so".  *HOW DO YOU "MAKE IT SO"?
> That intelligence has to be somewhere.  So what alternative do you
> propose? A bash or ash script is more guaranteed to run than a
> binary.  Shoving all that "intelligence" into the service itself,
> means that the service has to start up in order to determine whether
> it's safe for the service to start up.  What's wrong with this
> picture?

The intelligence goes in the init system's config file for that service
of course. I know I didn't clearly say so, but that's where it goes.

The information isn't complicated, you need some BEFORE and AFTER type
settings and various other bits and pieces (pid files etc). For services
that don't behave nicely when stopped and started in "regular ways",
supply start/stop/restart/reload functions in the same file that
override the defaults.

In principle it mirrors exactly how portage works with ebuilds.

>   And if systemd is so great, here's my supersystemd
> 
> #!/bin/bash
> ...
> ...
> /etc/init.d/net.lo start
> /etc/init.d/net.eth0 start
> /etc/init.d/net.sshd start
> etc, etc, etc

No no, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying necessarily that systemd is
great. I'm saying that sysvinit sucks big-time and we've needed
something better for 15 years. Systemd's design seems to fit that bill
nicely (whether it does it in practice remains to be seen)

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:39:59 -0500
> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
>> > On 18/03/2012 11:52, Dale wrote:
>> >> Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> >>> On Saturday 17 March 2012 12:54:53 Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> genkernel is pretty simple to use if you ask me.
>> >>>> just
>> >>>>
>> >>>> emerege genkernel
>> >>>>
>> >>>> and then use
>> >>>>
>> >>>> genkerenl --menuconfig all
>> >>>>
>> >>>> it will do everything for you the same as in a regular kernel
>> >>>> compiling.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> you have instructions on how to use genkernel on the handbook.
>> >>>
>> >>> What's more, you don't have to keep going through menuconfig if
>> >>> you already have a running self-compiled kernel. Just copy
>> >>> the .config file to
>> >>> somewhere safe (I use, e.g. /boot/config-3.2) and call genkernel
>> >>> with the
>> >>> option to specify the config file it's to use. Sorry but I can't
>> >>> tell you
>> >>> exactly what the parameter is as I don't have genkernel on this
>> >>> box. Someone will be along in a moment though.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I used genkernel when I was first installing Gentoo.  I let that
>> >> thing build half a dozen kernels, chroot in between too.  You know
>> >> what, not one of them worked.  That was a long time ago but let me
>> >> check something here.<  spit spit spit>   I had to get the bad
>> >> taste out of my mouth. lol
>> >>
>> >> I might also add, I started using a init thingy a few weeks ago,
>> >> dracut tool.  For some crazy reason, when I boot with the init
>> >> thingy, my system doesn't work right.  When I boot without the
>> >> init thingy, it works fine.  Still trying to figure out that one.
>> >> It's in another thread.
>> >>
>> >> I don't see myself using genkernel any time soon.  Right now, I'm
>> >> having flashbacks to hal with regard to dracut and the whole init
>> >> thingy /usr mess.
>> > i have used genkernel for a long time and all of my genkernel
>> > compilation works really good.
>> > i have (counting, 1 very very big production server, 2 small
>> > production server, 3 home server, 4 +5 +6 + 7 +8 of vms runing
>> > genkernel with several services such as mail mail filtering web
>> > server and monitoring) so what can i say? all these machines will
>> > say other then you.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Eliezer
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Dale
>> >>
>> >> :-)  :-)
>> >>
>>
>> Odd, it can work on all those yet fail on a relatively simple system.
>> Makes one wonder.  Maybe it is to complicated?  Sort of starting to
>> sound like udev isn't it?  lol
>>
>> I didn't say it would fail for the OP.  I just said it never worked
>> for me.  Compiling my own has worked for me.  I have only had one
>> failure with that.  I might also add, I have read where others have
>> nightmares about genkernel.  I'm not the only one.
>
> And using genkernel is pretty fucking pointless while it doesn't
> support suspend/resume right.
>
> Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I don;t use genkernel so
> don;t know the truth from experience. I only read what others say,
> claiming that genkernel doesn't support suspend/resume.

Resume/suspend or
hibernate/whatever-the-inverse-of-hibernate-is-called? Because
resume/suspend has nothing to do with an initramfs (being genkernel or
dracut or whatever), since it doesn't "boot" the machine again
(contrary to hibernate/whatever-etc.)

My laptop has used dracut since months ago, and suspends/resumes just
fine, as it does my media center.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[William Kenworthy]

On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 18:30 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:39:59 -0500
> > Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> >> > On 18/03/2012 11:52, Dale wrote:
> >> >> Peter Humphrey wrote:
> >> >>> On Saturday 17 March 2012 12:54:53 Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> genkernel is pretty simple to use if you ask me.
> >> >>>> just
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> emerege genkernel
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> and then use
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> genkerenl --menuconfig all
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> it will do everything for you the same as in a regular kernel
> >> >>>> compiling.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> you have instructions on how to use genkernel on the handbook.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> What's more, you don't have to keep going through menuconfig if
> >> >>> you already have a running self-compiled kernel. Just copy
> >> >>> the .config file to
> >> >>> somewhere safe (I use, e.g. /boot/config-3.2) and call genkernel
> >> >>> with the
> >> >>> option to specify the config file it's to use. Sorry but I can't
> >> >>> tell you
> >> >>> exactly what the parameter is as I don't have genkernel on this
> >> >>> box. Someone will be along in a moment though.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I used genkernel when I was first installing Gentoo.  I let that
> >> >> thing build half a dozen kernels, chroot in between too.  You know
> >> >> what, not one of them worked.  That was a long time ago but let me
> >> >> check something here.<  spit spit spit>   I had to get the bad
> >> >> taste out of my mouth. lol
> >> >>
> >> >> I might also add, I started using a init thingy a few weeks ago,
> >> >> dracut tool.  For some crazy reason, when I boot with the init
> >> >> thingy, my system doesn't work right.  When I boot without the
> >> >> init thingy, it works fine.  Still trying to figure out that one.
> >> >> It's in another thread.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't see myself using genkernel any time soon.  Right now, I'm
> >> >> having flashbacks to hal with regard to dracut and the whole init
> >> >> thingy /usr mess.
> >> > i have used genkernel for a long time and all of my genkernel
> >> > compilation works really good.
> >> > i have (counting, 1 very very big production server, 2 small
> >> > production server, 3 home server, 4 +5 +6 + 7 +8 of vms runing
> >> > genkernel with several services such as mail mail filtering web
> >> > server and monitoring) so what can i say? all these machines will
> >> > say other then you.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Eliezer
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Dale
> >> >>
> >> >> :-)  :-)
> >> >>
> >>
> >> Odd, it can work on all those yet fail on a relatively simple system.
> >> Makes one wonder.  Maybe it is to complicated?  Sort of starting to
> >> sound like udev isn't it?  lol
> >>
> >> I didn't say it would fail for the OP.  I just said it never worked
> >> for me.  Compiling my own has worked for me.  I have only had one
> >> failure with that.  I might also add, I have read where others have
> >> nightmares about genkernel.  I'm not the only one.
> >
> > And using genkernel is pretty fucking pointless while it doesn't
> > support suspend/resume right.
> >
> > Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I don;t use genkernel so
> > don;t know the truth from experience. I only read what others say,
> > claiming that genkernel doesn't support suspend/resume.
> 
> Resume/suspend or
> hibernate/whatever-the-inverse-of-hibernate-is-called? Because
> resume/suspend has nothing to do with an initramfs (being genkernel or
> dracut or whatever), since it doesn't "boot" the machine again
> (contrary to hibernate/whatever-etc.)
> 
> My laptop has used dracut since months ago, and suspends/resumes just
> fine, as it does my media center.
> 
> Regards.

Genkernel doesnt, bugs and work arounds on gentoo bugzilla, with angry
comments from a dev that it wont be supported and to not file bugs for
it - now that dev has moved on I dont know if enough has changed to test
the waters and file a bug again.

Its missing a hook in the initrd to call the binary that starts the
resume process.

I was reading where dracut needs a lot of work still, so despite my
previous bad experiences with genkernel in the past I went that way as
the suspend fix is available.  

People generally just call it suspend/resume but technically,
suspend/resume is often used to refer to suspend to ram, and hibernate
is for suspend to disk - I use suspend to disk but generally just call
it suspend/resume as (non-tech) people I talk to know what I mean.
Calling it hibernate usually has them asking questions.

It does work, as I said in a previous post, but the whole initrd thing
is a disaster waiting to happen - and dont say to me it works for Red
Hat as proof that it must be good because thats the distro where my most
major initrd embarrassment occurred (update getting missmatched versions
and fail to reboot.)

Your experience may be different to mine, but I am of the once bitten,
twice shy persuasion.  Whatever happened to Linux/Unix and its focus on
KISS as a major pillar of its stability?



BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Helmut Jarausch]

On 03/17/2012 05:11:23 AM, Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote:
>  This item just appeared after eix-sync:
> 
> HTPC ~ # eselect news read
> 2012-03-16-udev-181-unmasking
>   Title                     udev-181 unmasking
>   Author                    William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
>   Posted                    2012-03-16
>   Revision                  1
> 
> udev-181 is being unmasked on 2012-03-19.
> 
> This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of
> udev >=181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot  
> your
> system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr.
> 
> An initramfs which does this is created by
> >=sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25.1 or
> >=sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be
> sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr.
> 
> Also, if you are using OpenRC, you must upgrade to >= openrc-0.9.9.
> 
> For more information on why this has been done, see the following URL:
> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
> 

Hi,

has anybody followed the route shown in

http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Basic_initramfs_used_to_check_and_mount_/usr


Thanks for sharing your experience,
Helmut.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 668 bytes --]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 22:48:54 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote:

> And for the Lennart fanboi, his coding is
> so questionable that "Lennartware" has become derogatory slang. (Of
> course, you already know that.)

And this is such a common term nowadays that when Googling for
Lennartware only one reference to it turn up on the first page, and that
is your post!

I suppose by quoting your post I have doubled the popularity of this
commonplace slang :-O

This whole systemd for and against thread has turned up some interesting
points - interspersed with vague handwaving from you.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

When there's a will, I want to be in it.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 579 bytes --]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:00:37 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:

> Personally I stopped bothering with a separate /usr ages ago, so I don't
> really care.

Having given this some thought recently, I am coming round to the view
that the problem is /usr itself. It may have had a place when boot disks
were limited in size, but I really don't see the point it in at all
nowadays. This whole question of which bin directory does code belong in
should be "why do we need so many bin directories"?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

This is a test of the emergency tagline stealing system.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Eliezer Croitoru]

i want to try this systemd thingy, where do is start at?
i have a vm for testing and i might will adopt it on the real one.

Thanks,
Eliezer

On 18/03/2012 09:28, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> it
> or at least try it, and given the level of discussion you present, I'm
> starting to think you don't actually have the capacity to study it.
> So, in that sense, the one spreading the FUD is you.


-- 
Eliezer Croitoru
https://www1.ngtech.co.il
IT consulting for Nonprofit organizations
elilezer <at> ngtech.co.il

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 489 bytes --]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:09:14 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> Your sarcasm fails because you think that there is an intrinsic reason
> to keep / seperate. Well, with / filled with usefull binaries to bring
> a hosed system back from the garbage pile that was true for some peole.
> But with the current movement there isn't anything there at all. 

Doesn't everyone use a live distro for that?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

WindowError:01B  Illegal error. Do NOT get this error.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 666 bytes --]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:50:28 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> How do I find out if I am actually *using* an initramfs right now (I 
> know it is built into the kernel), and

If CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE is not set in your kernel config and you do
not have an initrd line in GRUB, you are not using an initramfs.

> If I am not, how do I do this without using genkernel? Is dracut t he 
> only other option? Is it easy/trivial to set one up manually?

There was a post on the dev list explaining how to set up a minimal
initramfs, I'll see if I can dig it out if no one beats me to it.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Know thyself.  If you need help, call the C.I.A.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Mark Knecht]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:00:37 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
>
>> Personally I stopped bothering with a separate /usr ages ago, so I don't
>> really care.
>
> Having given this some thought recently, I am coming round to the view
> that the problem is /usr itself. It may have had a place when boot disks
> were limited in size, but I really don't see the point it in at all
> nowadays. This whole question of which bin directory does code belong in
> should be "why do we need so many bin directories"?
>
>
> --
> Neil Bothwick
>
> This is a test of the emergency tagline stealing system.

+1

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove

- Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 623 bytes --]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:45:06 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> * Really good in-site customization: The service unit files are
> trivially overrided with custom ones for specific installations,
> without needing to touch the ones installed by systemd or a program.
> With OpenRC, if I modify a /etc/init.d file, chances are I need to
> check out my next installation so I can see how the new file differs
> from the old one, and adapt the changes to my customized version.

This I like the sound of.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Walking on water and writing software to specification is easy if they're
frozen.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1010 bytes --]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 02:49:56 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> > They ensure that there is an sshd configuration file and
> > give a meaningful message (including where to find the sample) if it
> > is not present, and check for the presence of the hostkeys (again
> > which are needed) and create them if they are not present. Your 9
> > lines of sshd.service do none of this.  
> 
> That is completely true. I also think that those checks does not
> belong into the init script: I think the configuration file presence
> should be guarantee by the package manager at install time, and so the
> creation of the hostkeys.

sshd is a bit of a special case. Think like CDs, like SystemRescueCD. If
the keys were created at installation time, every CD would have the same
keys, which is not particularly desirable.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I heard someone tried the monkeys-on-typewriters bit trying for the plays
of W. Shakespeare but all they got was the collected works of Francis
Bacon

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Eliezer Croitoru]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 7310 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Alex Schuster]

Eliezer Croitoru writes:

> i want to try this systemd thingy, where do is start at?

http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Systemd

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Alex Schuster]

William Kenworthy writes:

> On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 18:30 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> > My laptop has used dracut since months ago, and suspends/resumes just
> > fine, as it does my media center.

> Genkernel doesnt, bugs and work arounds on gentoo bugzilla, with angry
> comments from a dev that it wont be supported and to not file bugs for
> it - now that dev has moved on I dont know if enough has changed to test
> the waters and file a bug again.
> 
> Its missing a hook in the initrd to call the binary that starts the
> resume process.

Huh? I don't use this at the moment, because suspend-to-ram is enough for
me, but it (that is, the initramfs part) used to work just fine out of the
box for me, also opening my LUKS-encrypted root volume being on LVM. It
also seemed to work on another Gentoo PC I installed recently, although
TuxOnIce itself does not work so the resume fails. Argh, this suspend to
disk stuff NEVER really worked for me, and I tried for years on different
systems.

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Michael Mol]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 02:49:56 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> > They ensure that there is an sshd configuration file and
>> > give a meaningful message (including where to find the sample) if it
>> > is not present, and check for the presence of the hostkeys (again
>> > which are needed) and create them if they are not present. Your 9
>> > lines of sshd.service do none of this.
>>
>> That is completely true. I also think that those checks does not
>> belong into the init script: I think the configuration file presence
>> should be guarantee by the package manager at install time, and so the
>> creation of the hostkeys.
>
> sshd is a bit of a special case. Think like CDs, like SystemRescueCD. If
> the keys were created at installation time, every CD would have the same
> keys, which is not particularly desirable.

I prefer "counterexample" to "special case" ... I don't like calling
things "special cases" because it suggests that they're somehow more
privileged than anything else, and unnecessarily weighs against
software which hasn't been written yet.

A similar case which falls into the same kind of circumstance:
per-host IDs in mass-deployment scenarios. You see this in large
arrays of similar systems; 'sbc-a3d6' 'sbc-a3d9' 'sbc-7721' ... Heck,
applying something like that to live installation media would be nice;
not having every new install called simply 'gentoo' by default would
be very helpful in installfest scenarios. Identical hostnames screw
with DHCP-driven DDNS updates. I ran into that on my home network.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Bruce Hill, Jr.]

On March 19, 2012 at 9:13 AM Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 22:48:54 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote:
>
> > And for the Lennart fanboi, his coding is
> > so questionable that "Lennartware" has become derogatory slang. (Of
> > course, you already know that.)
>
> And this is such a common term nowadays that when Googling for
> Lennartware only one reference to it turn up on the first page, and that
> is your post!
>
> I suppose by quoting your post I have doubled the popularity of this
> commonplace slang :-O
>
> This whole systemd for and against thread has turned up some interesting
> points - interspersed with vague handwaving from you.
>
>
> --
> Neil Bothwick


mingdao@workstation ~ $ grep Lennartware irclogs/*
irclogs/#gentoo-dev.log:09:01 <@bonsaikitten> Caster: do you see now why I
don't appreciate Lennartware?
irclogs/#gentoo.log:10:56 <@bonsaikitten> Zaba: Lennartware. Linux needs to
be more like MacOS

https://s6-us2.startpage.com/do/search?cmd=process_search&pid=04014d679c59b80b606405a6fe33495a
  <--- 4 references

Various other mentions of systemd being nefarious software are mostly
amongst kernel devs and might not use the word "Lennartware", but the
logical reasons why systemd is a _bad_ idea are the same.
--
Happy Penguin Computers    >`)
126 Fenco Drive            ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801            ^^
662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
support at happypenguincomputers dot com
http://www.happypenguincomputers.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:35:26AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote

> >   systemd is like Captain Picard of STTNG (Start Trek The Next
> > Generation) always saying "make it so".  *HOW DO YOU "MAKE IT SO"?
> > That intelligence has to be somewhere.  So what alternative do you
> > propose? A bash or ash script is more guaranteed to run than a
> > binary.  Shoving all that "intelligence" into the service itself,
> > means that the service has to start up in order to determine whether
> > it's safe for the service to start up.  What's wrong with this
> > picture?
> 
> The intelligence goes in the init system's config file for that service
> of course. I know I didn't clearly say so, but that's where it goes.

  The config file can specify upper/lower limits, variables, settings,
etc, etc.  But in the end, some executable somewhere is going to have to
parse the config file, check the actual environment, and decide whether
or not to launch the service, and with what parameters.

  Note also that many open source programs are multiplatform.  I.e. they
run on FreeDOS with DJGPP, multiple flavours of Windows, multiple BSDs
(including Apple), linux, and multiple commercial unix flavours.  Do you
really want to throw multiple platform-specific IFDEFs into the program
code to allow the services to do the appropriate platform-specific
initialization?  Isn't it be easier to move the service setup out of the
main service, and let the maintainers of the specific platforms figure
it out?

  One last question.  Let's go back in time 20 years, and assume that
you're the maintainer for a program that runs as a service.  A small
handfull of end-users come along.  They're running a "hobby OS" that
fits on a couple floppies.  Said "hobby OS" has been cobbled together by
a university student.  Would you...
* download that university student's hobby OS, and install it
* throw in a bunch of additional IFDEF initialization code in your program
* test and debug the program to make sure it runs under that OS

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:17:01 +0000
Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:00:37 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
> 
> > Personally I stopped bothering with a separate /usr ages ago, so I
> > don't really care.
> 
> Having given this some thought recently, I am coming round to the view
> that the problem is /usr itself. It may have had a place when boot
> disks were limited in size, but I really don't see the point it in at
> all nowadays. This whole question of which bin directory does code
> belong in should be "why do we need so many bin directories"?
> 
> 

There are some separations that do make sense in a Unix context:

- */bin vs */sbin is one. Nothing to do with security, but */sbin can
  go in root's PATH and apps that only makes sense when run as root (eg
  mkfs) go there. This avoids cluttering the display with useful crap
  from tab-completion.

- / vs /usr/local. I like this one, everything I build and install
  myself without help from the package manager goes here. On FreeBSD it
  means I used ports to install the stuff and it's not in world. I do
  need this distinction in my world. Perl CPAN too for the same reasons.

- /opt. Um yeah, OK. So we have these things called proprietary apps
  where devs just want to make a directory specially for their app and
  dump everything belong it. OK, as a scheme, it works. I don't like
  it but I don't have a better idea.

/ vs /usr is the only one I don't need myself, as /usr is not read-only
(a very valid use case) and I don't have thin clients on the network.

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1582 bytes --]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:33:11 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote:

> > > And for the Lennart fanboi, his coding is
> > > so questionable that "Lennartware" has become derogatory slang. (Of
> > > course, you already know that.)
> >
> > And this is such a common term nowadays that when Googling for
> > Lennartware only one reference to it turn up on the first page, and
> > that is your post!

> mingdao@workstation ~ $ grep Lennartware irclogs/*
> irclogs/#gentoo-dev.log:09:01 <@bonsaikitten> Caster: do you see now
> why I don't appreciate Lennartware?
> irclogs/#gentoo.log:10:56 <@bonsaikitten> Zaba: Lennartware. Linux
> needs to be more like MacOS

Wow, 2 mentions on IRC - the term really has invaded the English
language.

>   <--- 4 references

Still not enough for Google to see it, barely enough for a contrived
allegation.

> Various other mentions of systemd being nefarious software are mostly
> amongst kernel devs and might not use the word "Lennartware", but the
> logical reasons why systemd is a _bad_ idea are the same.

Where does systemd come into it? Gentoo is following udev's upstream
requirements. These may have been triggered by udev's support for systemd
but that in no way means that systemd is required.

Greg K-H is also in favour of making /usr available to early boot, are
you going to accuse him of shoddy coding too?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Of course, I could switch back to Windows. At least there, if I have a
problem, I don't suffer under the illusion that I could ever fix it." -
Unknown (paraphrased)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:58:22 -0400
"Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:35:26AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
> 
> > >   systemd is like Captain Picard of STTNG (Start Trek The Next
> > > Generation) always saying "make it so".  *HOW DO YOU "MAKE IT SO"?
> > > That intelligence has to be somewhere.  So what alternative do you
> > > propose? A bash or ash script is more guaranteed to run than a
> > > binary.  Shoving all that "intelligence" into the service itself,
> > > means that the service has to start up in order to determine
> > > whether it's safe for the service to start up.  What's wrong with
> > > this picture?
> > 
> > The intelligence goes in the init system's config file for that
> > service of course. I know I didn't clearly say so, but that's where
> > it goes.
> 
>   The config file can specify upper/lower limits, variables, settings,
> etc, etc.  But in the end, some executable somewhere is going to have
> to parse the config file, check the actual environment, and decide
> whether or not to launch the service, and with what parameters.
> 
>   Note also that many open source programs are multiplatform.  I.e.
> they run on FreeDOS with DJGPP, multiple flavours of Windows,
> multiple BSDs (including Apple), linux, and multiple commercial unix
> flavours.  Do you really want to throw multiple platform-specific
> IFDEFs into the program code to allow the services to do the
> appropriate platform-specific initialization?  Isn't it be easier to
> move the service setup out of the main service, and let the
> maintainers of the specific platforms figure it out?
> 
>   One last question.  Let's go back in time 20 years, and assume that
> you're the maintainer for a program that runs as a service.  A small
> handfull of end-users come along.  They're running a "hobby OS" that
> fits on a couple floppies.  Said "hobby OS" has been cobbled together
> by a university student.  Would you...
> * download that university student's hobby OS, and install it
> * throw in a bunch of additional IFDEF initialization code in your
> program
> * test and debug the program to make sure it runs under that OS
> 

I'm not sure where you're going with this. We're discussing an init
system and good, simple ways to start services. App maintainers are
going to continue to do whatever they feel they ought to do, some might
write the systemd files, some might not - that is what already
happens. Someone has to write it and what goes in it depends on what
the app code does, not the other way round.

I'm not punting the merits of systemd, I don;t know enough about it. I
started off by saying a nice clean easy way to do init would be
awesome, as I'm sick and tired of having to deal with sysvinit. That's
all, don't read more into it than that.

As for the last question, I really have no idea where you're taking
this. I don't know the answer, I've never been a maintainer in that
position. Being the arrogant shit that I am, I reckon I would probably
tell the user to piss off and I don't support hobby crap. But hey,
that's just what I think I might say while sitting here on my couch.
Any other answer would be equally made up.

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1838 bytes --]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 01:04:04 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> - */bin vs */sbin is one. Nothing to do with security, but */sbin can
>   go in root's PATH and apps that only makes sense when run as root (eg
>   mkfs) go there. This avoids cluttering the display with useful crap
>   from tab-completion.

Agreed

> - / vs /usr/local. I like this one, everything I build and install
>   myself without help from the package manager goes here. On FreeBSD it
>   means I used ports to install the stuff and it's not in world. I do
>   need this distinction in my world. Perl CPAN too for the same reasons.

That too, or you can move all system stuff from /usr to / and put user
stuff in a directory with an appropriate name, something that reflects
its purpose, maybe something like /usr.

> - /opt. Um yeah, OK. So we have these things called proprietary apps
>   where devs just want to make a directory specially for their app and
>   dump everything belong it. OK, as a scheme, it works. I don't like
>   it but I don't have a better idea.

Yep.
 
> / vs /usr is the only one I don't need myself, as /usr is not read-only
> (a very valid use case) and I don't have thin clients on the network.

Separating system and user-compiled/installed software makes sense.
Separating root and general programs makes sense.
Separating system programs and libraries based on fairly arbitrary, and
moveable, criteria does not make sense to me.

As for making /usr read-only; it is generally only writeable by root and
anyone with the root password could remount rw anyway, so there's not much
point there.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Ninety-Ninety Rule Of Project Schedules - The first ninety percent of
the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten percent
takes the other ninety percent of the time.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:33:39 +0000
Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> As for making /usr read-only; it is generally only writeable by root
> and anyone with the root password could remount rw anyway, so there's
> not much point there.

I was thinking here more of /usr mounted -t nfs

root on nfs client != root on nfs server

hence the need for rootsquash.

But these days that setup is becoming a niche thing, the last one I saw
was in a university lab and I've never actually admined one myself.


-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[wdk@moriah]

Have two here - disk less atoms as mythtv front ends - seems a common use case in the mythtv world.  And another advantage is they sidestep the whole /user mess :)

BillK


On 20/03/2012, at 7:49, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:33:39 +0000
> Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> As for making /usr read-only; it is generally only writeable by root
>> and anyone with the root password could remount rw anyway, so there's
>> not much point there.
> 
> I was thinking here more of /usr mounted -t nfs
> 
> root on nfs client != root on nfs server
> 
> hence the need for rootsquash.
> 
> But these days that setup is becoming a niche thing, the last one I saw
> was in a university lab and I've never actually admined one myself.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alan McKinnnon
> alan.mckinnon@gmail.com
> 
> 

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1241 bytes --]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:13:02 +0800, wdk@moriah wrote:

> Have two here - disk less atoms as mythtv front ends - seems a common
> use case in the mythtv world.  And another advantage is they sidestep
> the whole /user mess :)

I've tried that in the past. Now I use the internal disk on the Acer
Aspire Revo. They are inaudible when mounted behind the TV and less
complex than messing with PXE. Once the frontend is loaded, the disk can
go to sleep anyway, it's hardly needed after that.

> On 20/03/2012, at 7:49, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:


> > I was thinking here more of /usr mounted -t nfs
> > 
> > root on nfs client != root on nfs server
> > 
> > hence the need for rootsquash.
> > 
> > But these days that setup is becoming a niche thing, the last one I
> > saw was in a university lab and I've never actually admined one
> > myself.

That is the sort of edge case where an initramfs is justifiable since you
already have a relatively complex setup.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

JPEG (JPG)
 Joint Photographic Experts Group. The original name of the
 committee that designed the eponymous standard image compression
 algorithm. Abbreviated to JPG by PPL WHO CNT TYP or WSE PCS ARE BKN.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Walter Dnes]

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 01:18:24AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote

> I'm not sure where you're going with this. We're discussing an init
> system and good, simple ways to start services. App maintainers are
> going to continue to do whatever they feel they ought to do, some might
> write the systemd files, some might not - that is what already
> happens. Someone has to write it and what goes in it depends on what
> the app code does, not the other way round.

  The point I'm making is that if the initialization is moved into the
binary, then the binary will have to be patched/modified/whatever.
There's already somebody with a systemd overlay.  Assuming that the
initialization code gets shoved into the binary, how does it
simultaneously support openrc/systemd/linux/bsd/Sun/HPUX/etc/etc?  The
only realistic answer I see is leaving the init code to the distro
maintainer.  We don't expect the upstream for sshd or any other software
to write Gentoo-specific stuff like ebuilds.  Whey should they be
expected to write Gentoo-specific initscripts?

> As for the last question, I really have no idea where you're taking
> this. I don't know the answer, I've never been a maintainer in that
> position. Being the arrogant shit that I am, I reckon I would probably
> tell the user to piss off and I don't support hobby crap. But hey,
> that's just what I think I might say while sitting here on my couch.

  So you're saying you wouldn't have supported...

> From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
> Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
> Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
> Summary: small poll for my new operating system Message-ID: <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
> Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
> Organization: University of Helsinki
> 
> Hello everybody out there using minix - I'm doing a (free) operating
> system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for
> 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since april, and is starting
> to get ready.I'd like any feedback on things people like/dislike in
> minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the
> file-system(due to practical reasons) among other things). I've
> currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40),and things seem to
> work.This implies that I'll get something practical within a few
> months, andI'd like to know what features most people would want.
> Any suggestions are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement
> them :-) Linus (torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi) PS. Yes - it's free of
> any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.  It is NOT protable
> (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will support
> anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:40:27 -0400
"Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 01:18:24AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
> 
> > I'm not sure where you're going with this. We're discussing an init
> > system and good, simple ways to start services. App maintainers are
> > going to continue to do whatever they feel they ought to do, some
> > might write the systemd files, some might not - that is what already
> > happens. Someone has to write it and what goes in it depends on what
> > the app code does, not the other way round.  
> 
>   The point I'm making is that if the initialization is moved into the
> binary, then the binary will have to be patched/modified/whatever.
> There's already somebody with a systemd overlay.  Assuming that the
> initialization code gets shoved into the binary, how does it
> simultaneously support openrc/systemd/linux/bsd/Sun/HPUX/etc/etc?  The
> only realistic answer I see is leaving the init code to the distro
> maintainer.  We don't expect the upstream for sshd or any other
> software to write Gentoo-specific stuff like ebuilds.  Whey should
> they be expected to write Gentoo-specific initscripts?

Fair enough

> > As for the last question, I really have no idea where you're taking
> > this. I don't know the answer, I've never been a maintainer in that
> > position. Being the arrogant shit that I am, I reckon I would
> > probably tell the user to piss off and I don't support hobby crap.
> > But hey, that's just what I think I might say while sitting here on
> > my couch.  
> 
>   So you're saying you wouldn't have supported...

No, you're saying that you believe that you think I would say that
based on some extrapolation of I don't know what.

I said no such thing.
I said that I don't know what I would do

Let's not get too carried away with Linus's little project being
representative of anything. It's a fluke. There are 100s of other hobby
systems that went nowhere.



-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Michael Mol]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:40:27 -0400
> "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 01:18:24AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
>>
>> > I'm not sure where you're going with this. We're discussing an init
>> > system and good, simple ways to start services. App maintainers are
>> > going to continue to do whatever they feel they ought to do, some
>> > might write the systemd files, some might not - that is what already
>> > happens. Someone has to write it and what goes in it depends on what
>> > the app code does, not the other way round.
>>
>>   The point I'm making is that if the initialization is moved into the
>> binary, then the binary will have to be patched/modified/whatever.
>> There's already somebody with a systemd overlay.  Assuming that the
>> initialization code gets shoved into the binary, how does it
>> simultaneously support openrc/systemd/linux/bsd/Sun/HPUX/etc/etc?  The
>> only realistic answer I see is leaving the init code to the distro
>> maintainer.  We don't expect the upstream for sshd or any other
>> software to write Gentoo-specific stuff like ebuilds.  Whey should
>> they be expected to write Gentoo-specific initscripts?
>
> Fair enough
>
>> > As for the last question, I really have no idea where you're taking
>> > this. I don't know the answer, I've never been a maintainer in that
>> > position. Being the arrogant shit that I am, I reckon I would
>> > probably tell the user to piss off and I don't support hobby crap.
>> > But hey, that's just what I think I might say while sitting here on
>> > my couch.
>>
>>   So you're saying you wouldn't have supported...
>
> No, you're saying that you believe that you think I would say that
> based on some extrapolation of I don't know what.
>
> I said no such thing.
> I said that I don't know what I would do
>
> Let's not get too carried away with Linus's little project being
> representative of anything. It's a fluke. There are 100s of other hobby
> systems that went nowhere.

I said this before, but it sounds useful to try to reiterate:

* It's probable that service-specific files should not be included in
the init system package.
* Service-specific init files should probably be part of the
distro-localized version of a service-providing package.

This doesn't mean modifying binaries, this is part of bootstrapping a
service's environment. Call it "deferred installation stages", if you
like; things which need to be done for the service to be configured
and properly operate.



-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Walter Dnes]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:02:32PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote

> I said this before, but it sounds useful to try to reiterate:
> 
> * It's probable that service-specific files should not be included in
> the init system package.
> * Service-specific init files should probably be part of the
> distro-localized version of a service-providing package.
> 
> This doesn't mean modifying binaries, this is part of bootstrapping a
> service's environment. Call it "deferred installation stages", if you
> like; things which need to be done for the service to be configured
> and properly operate.

  My point is that the startup, sanity-checking, and initialization code
has to go *SOMEWHERE*.  Where do you propose moving it to?  This
discussion reminds me of an ethnic joke.  A bunch of workers had dug out
a hole for the basement and foundations where a new house was to be
built.  The workers ask their foreman what they should do with the pile
of dirt they had from digging out the hole for the new house.  Their
foreman, who is ____________ tells them to go dig another hole in the
ground and throw the dirt in there. <G>

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Michael Mol]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:02:32PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote
>
>> I said this before, but it sounds useful to try to reiterate:
>>
>> * It's probable that service-specific files should not be included in
>> the init system package.
>> * Service-specific init files should probably be part of the
>> distro-localized version of a service-providing package.
>>
>> This doesn't mean modifying binaries, this is part of bootstrapping a
>> service's environment. Call it "deferred installation stages", if you
>> like; things which need to be done for the service to be configured
>> and properly operate.
>
>  My point is that the startup, sanity-checking, and initialization code
> has to go *SOMEWHERE*.  Where do you propose moving it to?

Sure. But there's a difference between moving, e.g. sshd's first-time
code into the net-misc/openssh package and moving it into the sshd
binary itself.

I don't want to sound condescending, but I really don't know how much
of this is going to be generally known on this list, and I get the
impression that it's unclear...

(Also, I'm not an expert on this...)

The distribution of software, as I understand it, generally has three
groups of people who hold it:

1) Upstream. Generally, upstream will keep their software portable and
agnostic, so it can be installed in a variety of places. That's not a
requirement, but it's considered polite in the open-source world, and
fairly necessary if they want the software to be broadly used.
Upstream is expected to know their software well enough to keep it in
active development, or at least in current maintenance.

2) Packager. A packager adapts upstream's software so that it fits in
and plays nicely with the rest of the software in the system. The
packager is expected to have the required understanding of both the
software and the target distribution in order to accomplish this.

3) End user. The end user isn't typically expected to have a full
understanding of the software or the distribution. He'll run the
distribution's package manager to install the software, follow any
instructions given for configuration, and apply any domain expertise
he has to configure things to conform to site-local needs.

What we're talking about with systemd vs openrc, and things like ssh'd
first-time initialization is all within the realm of responsibility of
the packager. It's a shift in the way the distribution itself works.
We're not talking about a scenario where you shunt things upstream, so
the whole "your position would have rejected Linux" angle is a red
herring.

Now, let's look at what an init system does. For each service, it
spawns some process, checks a return code, declares either success or
failure, and may take some further action based on that success or
failure.

Why does that spawned process have to be sshd? Why can't it be some
shell script which does the one-time checks, and then launches sshd
itself? Why does that shell script need to be distributed as part of
the init system's package, and not part of the package associated with
the service?

Having the shell script be part of the package associated with the
service keeps bugs related to that script associated with that
package.

As far as compatibility between init systems is concerned, you can
symlink  the init system's launch file (e.g. /etc/init.d/some_file) to
wherever this shell script is, or you can configure the init system
such that it knows where the shell script is.

At least, that's the way I see it. Any issue of compatibility between
the two can be addressed by the service's package manager, either by
adaption via that script, or by expressing an explicit dependency on
one init architecture or another.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Walter Dnes]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:35:55PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote

> What we're talking about with systemd vs openrc, and things like ssh'd
> first-time initialization is all within the realm of responsibility of
> the packager. It's a shift in the way the distribution itself works.
> We're not talking about a scenario where you shunt things upstream, so
> the whole "your position would have rejected Linux" angle is a red
> herring.

  This is a frustrating game of whack-a-mole.  Person A comes up with a
position, I rebut it, and then person B comes up with a different
position, and I have to rebut it..  There have been people in this
thread who have said that the program best knows what it needs, and
should handle its own initialization.  That was what I was replying to.
I'll reply to your position now.

> Why does that spawned process have to be sshd? Why can't it be some
> shell script which does the one-time checks, and then launches sshd
> itself?

  So instead of the initscript doing the checking+setup and launching
the service, it launches a a second script... which does the
checking+setup and launches the service <FACEPALM>.  See my post with
the joke of digging a second hole to dump the dirt from the first hole
into.  Instead of one script, we now have two scripts.  This is *NOT*
simplification.

> Why does that shell script need to be distributed as part of the
> init system's package, and not part of the package associated with
> the service?

  I don't understand what you're arguing here.  *THE INITSCRIPT IS OWNED
BY THE SERVICE PACKAGE*, not by the init package.  E.g. net-misc/openssh,
not sys-apps/openrc.

waltdnes@d530 ~ $ equery b /etc/init.d/sshd
 * Searching for /etc/init.d/sshd ... 
net-misc/openssh-5.8_p1-r1 (/etc/init.d/sshd)

> Having the shell script be part of the package associated with the
> service keeps bugs related to that script associated with that
> package.

  That's the way it is right now.  See above.

> At least, that's the way I see it. Any issue of compatibility between
> the two can be addressed by the service's package manager, either by
> adaption via that script, or by expressing an explicit dependency on
> one init architecture or another.

  My point in this whole argument is that there is some checking and
setup that has to be done before launch.  Therefore shuffling off some
or all of the shellscript code to another script is a pointless "shell
game" (sorry) that adds no value.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Mike Edenfield]

> From: Walter Dnes [mailto:waltdnes@waltdnes.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:14 PM

> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:35:55PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote
> 
> > What we're talking about with systemd vs openrc, and things like ssh'd
> > first-time initialization is all within the realm of responsibility of
> > the packager. It's a shift in the way the distribution itself works.
> > We're not talking about a scenario where you shunt things upstream, so
> > the whole "your position would have rejected Linux" angle is a red
> > herring.
> 
>   This is a frustrating game of whack-a-mole.  Person A comes up with a
> position, I rebut it, and then person B comes up with a different
position, and
> I have to rebut it..  There have been people in this thread who have said
that
> the program best knows what it needs, and should handle its own
> initialization.  That was what I was replying to.
> I'll reply to your position now.

You know the old adage, if you ask 5 geeks a question you get 6 different
answers.

This whole discussion is somewhat surreal to me, when taken in conjunction
with the other heated debate we just finished having:

* udev is evil and horrible because it's trying to do too much and is too
complex.
* system is evil and horrible because it isn't doing enough and is too
simple.

And I'm pretty I've seen at least one person making both arguments
simultaneously.

> > Why does that spawned process have to be sshd? Why can't it be some
> > shell script which does the one-time checks, and then launches sshd
> > itself?
> 
>   So instead of the initscript doing the checking+setup and launching the
> service, it launches a a second script... which does the
> checking+setup and launches the service <FACEPALM>.  See my post with
> the joke of digging a second hole to dump the dirt from the first hole
into.
> Instead of one script, we now have two scripts.  This is *NOT*
simplification.

It works fine for mysql, or postfix, or apache, or any of the dozens of
other programs that have helper scripts whose sole purposes is to act as an
entry point to starting up the actual service. It's a common and
well-accepted way of performing required initialization on startup. I don't
see why sshd has to be special here. 

> > Why does that shell script need to be distributed as part of the init
> > system's package, and not part of the package associated with the
> > service?
> 
>   I don't understand what you're arguing here.  *THE INITSCRIPT IS OWNED
BY
> THE SERVICE PACKAGE*, not by the init package.  E.g. net-misc/openssh, not
> sys-apps/openrc.

You are absolutely correct; the discussion of who "owns" the init script is
completely tangential to the system vs openrc argument; in both cases, the
required startup files will be provided by the package maintainer and
installed by the ebuild, not by the rc system. I think the confusion may
have started way back when Canek tried to compare the "simplicity" of
sshd.service to the "complexity" of /etc/init.d/sshd. That's the unfair,
apples-to-oranges comparison that triggered this entire debate.

The part that's been lost here is that system doesn't run init scripts(*);
it launches configured services. These are *not* shell scripts; they are
ini-file-like things that define parameters, much like xinetd's
configuration files. Of course, I don't see why this is a problem: configure
system to launch sshd's init script, which keeps doing the same thing it
always has been doing. This is why the comparison between systemd's service
config and openrc's script is unfair. You /cannot/ get rid of the complexity
of /etc/init.d/sshd, you can only make it so that openrc and systemd can
*both* take advantage of that complexity when starting sshd. That may, of
course, require the package maintainer to provide 3 items instead of one: an
openrc init script, a systemd service description, and an rc-agnostic helper
script, in order to be fully systemd-compatible. In the meantime, the
systemd package maintainer will likely be forced to provide some kind of
compatibility shims to run existing openrc scripts that have not yet been
refactored, but that's the cost of choice.

It may already do this, I don't know. I have not yet installed systemd
anywhere but I am curious enough to try it on my laptop. So I will be that
much more informed in the near future :)

(*) As I understand it, systemd *can* run SysV-style init scripts, but
Gentoo's startup scripts are too dependent on openrc-supplied logic to be
reusable in any meaningful sense. 
--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Michael Mol]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:35:55PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote
>
>> What we're talking about with systemd vs openrc, and things like ssh'd
>> first-time initialization is all within the realm of responsibility of
>> the packager. It's a shift in the way the distribution itself works.
>> We're not talking about a scenario where you shunt things upstream, so
>> the whole "your position would have rejected Linux" angle is a red
>> herring.
>
>  This is a frustrating game of whack-a-mole.  Person A comes up with a
> position, I rebut it, and then person B comes up with a different
> position, and I have to rebut it..  There have been people in this
> thread who have said that the program best knows what it needs, and
> should handle its own initialization.  That was what I was replying to.
> I'll reply to your position now.
>
>> Why does that spawned process have to be sshd? Why can't it be some
>> shell script which does the one-time checks, and then launches sshd
>> itself?
>
>  So instead of the initscript doing the checking+setup and launching
> the service, it launches a a second script... which does the
> checking+setup and launches the service <FACEPALM>.  See my post with
> the joke of digging a second hole to dump the dirt from the first hole
> into.  Instead of one script, we now have two scripts.  This is *NOT*
> simplification.

No. In a system V scenario, you'd probably just symlink to the
genericized init script. In the systemd scenario, as I understand it,
you have a configuration file (distinct from a script), and you'd
include the path to the genericized init script there.

What I'm talking about is an implementation of the adapter pattern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapter_pattern

If there are going to be competing init systems (and there will be),
and a service needs to be compatible with both (and there will be such
services), then that's going to be the most elegant solution.

>
>> Why does that shell script need to be distributed as part of the
>> init system's package, and not part of the package associated with
>> the service?
>
>  I don't understand what you're arguing here.  *THE INITSCRIPT IS OWNED
> BY THE SERVICE PACKAGE*, not by the init package.  E.g. net-misc/openssh,
> not sys-apps/openrc.
>
> waltdnes@d530 ~ $ equery b /etc/init.d/sshd
>  * Searching for /etc/init.d/sshd ...
> net-misc/openssh-5.8_p1-r1 (/etc/init.d/sshd)

Sure. And that's what I was arguing. Though by the sound of it,
there's stuffed in the openrc package which doesn't need to be there,
and a blog post flameeyes posted today suggests the systemd package is
intended to absorb the hardware database. (
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2012/03/refreshing-a-4-years-old-problem )

>
>> Having the shell script be part of the package associated with the
>> service keeps bugs related to that script associated with that
>> package.
>
>  That's the way it is right now.  See above.

And that's the way it should be.

>
>> At least, that's the way I see it. Any issue of compatibility between
>> the two can be addressed by the service's package manager, either by
>> adaption via that script, or by expressing an explicit dependency on
>> one init architecture or another.
>
>  My point in this whole argument is that there is some checking and
> setup that has to be done before launch.  Therefore shuffling off some
> or all of the shellscript code to another script is a pointless "shell
> game" (sorry) that adds no value.

See reference to the adapter pattern above.

Systemd has its merits in its capabilities. System V init has merits
in that it's far more portable. Open source software which operates as
a system service will need to support both.

There are, of course, things I loathe. I loathe the apparent mindset
behind systemd and behind udev, wherein all things belong as part of a
monolithic system. That runs counter to principles of modular design,
portability and even systemic stability in changing things. I loathe
the desire to lunge forward without working out a transition plan, or
even having the appearance of interest in one. And I loathe the
terrible PR.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[J. Roeleveld]

On Thu, March 22, 2012 12:55 am, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:02:32PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote
>
>> I said this before, but it sounds useful to try to reiterate:
>>
>> * It's probable that service-specific files should not be included in
>> the init system package.
>> * Service-specific init files should probably be part of the
>> distro-localized version of a service-providing package.
>>
>> This doesn't mean modifying binaries, this is part of bootstrapping a
>> service's environment. Call it "deferred installation stages", if you
>> like; things which need to be done for the service to be configured
>> and properly operate.
>
>   My point is that the startup, sanity-checking, and initialization code
> has to go *SOMEWHERE*.  Where do you propose moving it to?  This
> discussion reminds me of an ethnic joke.  A bunch of workers had dug out
> a hole for the basement and foundations where a new house was to be
> built.  The workers ask their foreman what they should do with the pile
> of dirt they had from digging out the hole for the new house.  Their
> foreman, who is ____________ tells them to go dig another hole in the
> ground and throw the dirt in there. <G>

... After pushing the foreman in.... ;)

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] chicken/eff issue with suspend-to-disk/hibernate problem [Was: The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!]

[J. Roeleveld]

On Mon, March 19, 2012 3:56 pm, Alex Schuster wrote:
> William Kenworthy writes:
>
>> On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 18:30 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> > My laptop has used dracut since months ago, and suspends/resumes just
>> > fine, as it does my media center.
>
>> Genkernel doesnt, bugs and work arounds on gentoo bugzilla, with angry
>> comments from a dev that it wont be supported and to not file bugs for
>> it - now that dev has moved on I dont know if enough has changed to test
>> the waters and file a bug again.
>>
>> Its missing a hook in the initrd to call the binary that starts the
>> resume process.
>
> Huh? I don't use this at the moment, because suspend-to-ram is enough for
> me, but it (that is, the initramfs part) used to work just fine out of the
> box for me, also opening my LUKS-encrypted root volume being on LVM. It
> also seemed to work on another Gentoo PC I installed recently, although
> TuxOnIce itself does not work so the resume fails. Argh, this suspend to
> disk stuff NEVER really worked for me, and I tried for years on different
> systems.

I had it working a long time ago, but the last time I tried it I ended up
with a bit of a problem:

I don't want a swap-partition on the SSD in my netbook. So I want it to
use the SD-card that's permanently plugged in. Problem is, it's connected
via an internal USB-port and USB is killed before the writing-proces for
the suspend-to-disk starts.

Anyone know a solution short of rewriting the kernel? ;)

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!

[J. Roeleveld]

On Sun, March 18, 2012 8:30 am, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
> <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On March 17, 2012 at 8:43 PM Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> initramfs side of things. I did have to use one to bring up my server
>>> with / on a RAID6, not because I needed it long term but in the short
>>> term I couldn't determine how mdadm was numbering the RAID so that I
>>> could get grub.conf correct. I'm somehow a bot worried something is
>>> going to slip by the devs and I'd be better off having an initramfs
>>> already running on the box when I do allow the upgrades.
>>>
>>> Planning on giving Dracut a try.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mark
>>>
>>
>>
>> The real short of this is that if you use 0.90 superblocks, and /boot on
>> it's own little partition, your kernel can assembly your
>> RAID<whateverlevel> without an initrd image. You will reboot with the
>> /dev/md0 you created as /dev/md0. And unless you have partitions (or is
>> it
>> single drives) over 2TB, you can use metadata=0.90.
>>
>> As they say, Works For Me (R).
>>
>> I've yet to read a simple explanation of HOW-TO do this in a Gentoo doc
>> (not that it doesn't exist), but you can follow this very simple
>> README_RAID used in Slackware to build them on Gentoo:
>>
>> http://slackware.oregonstate.edu/slackware64-current/README_RAID.TXT
>
> I recall reading on this list a week or two ago that kernel
> autoassembly of 0.90 arrays was deprecated. :(

Shhh!
Please don't tell my production server ;)

It might go at some point, especially if they decide that everyone uses
initramfs or similar...

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] chicken/eff issue with suspend-to-disk/hibernate problem [Was: The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!]

[wdk@moriah]

On 29/03/2012, at 17:35, "J. Roeleveld" <joost@antarean.org> wrote:

> 
> On Mon, March 19, 2012 3:56 pm, Alex Schuster wrote:
>> William Kenworthy writes:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 18:30 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> 
>>>> My laptop has used dracut since months ago, and suspends/resumes just
>>>> fine, as it does my media center.
>> 
>>> Genkernel doesnt, bugs and work arounds on gentoo bugzilla, with angry
>>> comments from a dev that it wont be supported and to not file bugs for
>>> it - now that dev has moved on I dont know if enough has changed to test
>>> the waters and file a bug again.
>>> 
>>> Its missing a hook in the initrd to call the binary that starts the
>>> resume process.
>> 
>> Huh? I don't use this at the moment, because suspend-to-ram is enough for
>> me, but it (that is, the initramfs part) used to work just fine out of the
>> box for me, also opening my LUKS-encrypted root volume being on LVM. It
>> also seemed to work on another Gentoo PC I installed recently, although
>> TuxOnIce itself does not work so the resume fails. Argh, this suspend to
>> disk stuff NEVER really worked for me, and I tried for years on different
>> systems.
> 
> I had it working a long time ago, but the last time I tried it I ended up
> with a bit of a problem:
> 
> I don't want a swap-partition on the SSD in my netbook. So I want it to
> use the SD-card that's permanently plugged in. Problem is, it's connected
> via an internal USB-port and USB is killed before the writing-proces for
> the suspend-to-disk starts.
> 
> Anyone know a solution short of rewriting the kernel? ;)
> 
> --
> Joost
> 
> 
try tuxonice - allows you to suspend to a file on disk as well as ram or swap.  Added bonus is its much more robust than in-kernel, and the dev (Nigel) is very responsive if help or bugfixes (usually for new kernel versions) are needed.

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] chicken/eff issue with suspend-to-disk/hibernate problem [Was: The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!]

[J. Roeleveld]

On Thu, March 29, 2012 12:40 pm, wdk@moriah wrote:
>
>
> On 29/03/2012, at 17:35, "J. Roeleveld" <joost@antarean.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, March 19, 2012 3:56 pm, Alex Schuster wrote:
>>> William Kenworthy writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 18:30 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>>
>>>>> My laptop has used dracut since months ago, and suspends/resumes just
>>>>> fine, as it does my media center.
>>>
>>>> Genkernel doesnt, bugs and work arounds on gentoo bugzilla, with angry
>>>> comments from a dev that it wont be supported and to not file bugs for
>>>> it - now that dev has moved on I dont know if enough has changed to
>>>> test
>>>> the waters and file a bug again.
>>>>
>>>> Its missing a hook in the initrd to call the binary that starts the
>>>> resume process.
>>>
>>> Huh? I don't use this at the moment, because suspend-to-ram is enough
>>> for
>>> me, but it (that is, the initramfs part) used to work just fine out of
>>> the
>>> box for me, also opening my LUKS-encrypted root volume being on LVM. It
>>> also seemed to work on another Gentoo PC I installed recently, although
>>> TuxOnIce itself does not work so the resume fails. Argh, this suspend
>>> to
>>> disk stuff NEVER really worked for me, and I tried for years on
>>> different
>>> systems.
>>
>> I had it working a long time ago, but the last time I tried it I ended
>> up
>> with a bit of a problem:
>>
>> I don't want a swap-partition on the SSD in my netbook. So I want it to
>> use the SD-card that's permanently plugged in. Problem is, it's
>> connected
>> via an internal USB-port and USB is killed before the writing-proces for
>> the suspend-to-disk starts.
>>
>> Anyone know a solution short of rewriting the kernel? ;)
>>
>> --
>> Joost
>>
>>
> try tuxonice - allows you to suspend to a file on disk as well as ram or
> swap.  Added bonus is its much more robust than in-kernel, and the dev
> (Nigel) is very responsive if help or bugfixes (usually for new kernel
> versions) are needed.

True, but I don't want to have too many write-actions to the internal SSD,
which means that I'd want the file on the SD as well...


-- 
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] chicken/eff issue with suspend-to-disk/hibernate problem [Was: The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!]

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 774 bytes --]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:51:44 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:

> > try tuxonice - allows you to suspend to a file on disk as well as ram
> > or swap.  Added bonus is its much more robust than in-kernel, and the
> > dev (Nigel) is very responsive if help or bugfixes (usually for new
> > kernel versions) are needed.  

I'd question this seeing as it hasn't been released for kernel 3.1 or
later. Not that it is a bad choice, it is not, but it is certainly not
keeping up.

> True, but I don't want to have too many write-actions to the internal
> SSD, which means that I'd want the file on the SD as well...

TuxOnIce lets you specify where you want the hibernate file.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

X-Modem- A device on the losing end of an encounter with lightning.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] chicken/eff issue with suspend-to-disk/hibernate problem [Was: The End Is Near ... or, get the vaseline, they're on the way!]

[wdk@moriah]

On 29/03/2012, at 22:04, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:51:44 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> 
>>> try tuxonice - allows you to suspend to a file on disk as well as ram
>>> or swap.  Added bonus is its much more robust than in-kernel, and the
>>> dev (Nigel) is very responsive if help or bugfixes (usually for new
>>> kernel versions) are needed.  
> 
> I'd question this seeing as it hasn't been released for kernel 3.1 or
> later. Not that it is a bad choice, it is not, but it is certainly not
> keeping up.
> 
>> True, but I don't want to have too many write-actions to the internal
>> SSD, which means that I'd want the file on the SD as well...
> 
> TuxOnIce lets you specify where you want the hibernate file.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Neil Bothwick
> 
> X-Modem- A device on the losing end of an encounter with lightning.

and dont forget, its not a swapfile so you only write once on hibernate, and read once on restart.  and you can delete/recreate the file in between if you wish - its only used for hibernate.

billK