From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1903A1381F3 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:59:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C468B21C09A; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:59:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCC9321C085 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:58:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-gh0-f172.google.com with SMTP id z22so620729ghb.31 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 04:58:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DB4FBlQ2bto/BBHVNVwesdmMtMvFYqJupDKmzElaTcA=; b=t4EFYWoGRDBNc228X8PW3TL/0A8Rpb8RfRVuV8UlGBJcZaJk+K/TE4UVxkSfKCA/ol elw1pvibBHZ7O9tYUuWcmdoPlwTiLvkzi0pRR+qOBXrjMRV8CUjHS2mHHnPdn7Wo/psR BpqT2zc5YyZuExpPEzuYO4rek8v41JZ4fSUDaNYlEP0rELN4Dr1csy1X9/V2CcY506am dRtSzJ5jl0mP8qrW08WJclPbNaTgYpjKp8pp4OQfqiTapE0X37cxGcg0MaXFxprFOhwH Ngf64zZTYUQzAxmjEL+Ld4ghCe6tcBr5vBs8RNCOfSVRY1PvKVBGHpRL3Hv85Z9rDy3r 2i6w== X-Received: by 10.236.145.38 with SMTP id o26mr20048844yhj.89.1356353898073; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 04:58:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-94-18.jan.bellsouth.net. [65.0.94.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w2sm18955625yhk.8.2012.12.24.04.58.16 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 24 Dec 2012 04:58:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50D85167.9060309@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:58:15 -0600 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/17.0 SeaMonkey/2.14.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet? References: <50CB1942.3020900@gmail.com> <50CB4A3C.1030109@gmail.com> <50CB5406.7040404@gmail.com> <8738z7hgsa.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121216171043.71084070@khamul.example.com> <20121217104621.735bf43a@khamul.example.com> <20121218163332.7956f31a@khamul.example.com> <87txrd6pb3.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121223182037.1553813f@khamul.example.com> <87bodk7lb6.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121224085528.56f535ec@khamul.example.com> In-Reply-To: <20121224085528.56f535ec@khamul.example.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7682152e-2f82-4cef-8e9f-003712f0085f X-Archives-Hash: c73bed48515211b6be2546dd4c3e8ea4 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:03:25 +0200 > nunojsilva@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: > >> On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +0200 >>> nunojsilva@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: >>> >>>> On 2012-12-18, Alan McKinnon wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:08:53 -0500 >>>>> Michael Mol wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This sentence summarizes my understanding of your post nicely: >>>>> >>>>>> Now, why is /usr special? It's because it contains executable >>>>>> code the system might require while launching. >>>>> Now there are only two approaches that could solve that problem: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Avoid it entirely >>>>> 2. Deal with it using any of a variety of bootstrap techniques >>>>> >>>>> #1 is handled by policy, whereby any code the system might >>>>> require while launching is not in /usr. >>>>> >>>>> #2 already has a solution, it's called an init*. Other solutions >>>>> exist but none are as elegant as a throwaway temporary filesystem >>>>> in RAM. >>>> What about just mounting /usr as soon as the system boots? >>> >>> Please read the thread next time. The topic under discussion is >>> solutions to the problem of not being able to do exactly that. >> Then I suppose you can surely explain in a nutshell why can't init >> scripts simply do that? >> > It is trivially easy to create a circular loop whereby code required to > mount /usr now resides on /usr. > > Which is the entire thrust of this whole thread. > When I reboot, I get a lot of errors about /var being empty, since it is not mounted yet. It appears it wants /var as well as /usr early on in the boot process. It boots regardless of the errors tho. For the record Nuno, I have / and /boot on regular partitions. I have everything else, /home, /usr, /var and /usr/portage on LVM partitions. Until recently, I NEVER needed a init thingy and had zero errors while booting. Once this 'needing /usr on /' started a few months ago, I was told I would need one to boot. The claim being it was broken all the time but odd that it worked for the last 9 years with no problem, might add, I only been using Linux for the last 9 years but it also would have worked before that. So, Nuno, everything was fine until they started moving things to a place where it shouldn't be. Now, we have people working on eudev which will replace udev and allow us to boot with a separate /usr and no init thingy either. Basically, putting it back like it was, for many years I might add. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!