Paul Colquhoun wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:17:24 Nuno J. Silva wrote:

>

> Also, if you actually read the linked URL, it does explain it won't fail

> to boot. You do realize these are two different issues here, right? One

> is people saying that udev-181 will fail to boot, other is the issue

> described on the URL linked on the news item, which is about stuff in

> /usr breaking udev rules, which has been around for a long time and will

> *silently* fail. I remind you that "silently fail" implies that your

> system will still boot, even if it is affected by the issue.

So, instead of fixing udev properly, by making the failures visible (as they probably should have been from the start) or even re-queueing the events to be run after the rule files are avaiable, the developers took the easy (for them) way out, and told the rest of the world to do things their way.

Basically, yep. If I see a error while booting, in dmesg or some other logging tool, I can handle it and make changes so that it is fixed. When I mentioned on this list about using LVM, I specifically chose to put / on a normal partition to avoid the init thingy. If I have to use a init thingy anyway, I may as well put everything but /boot on LVM. Putting / on LVM usually means you have to have a init thingy so that it can be mounted, from what I have read anyway. It looked like for a while that I was going to have one whether I wanted it or not. Now, just waiting eudev, which is going to fix it like udev/systemd should to begin with.

You pretty much got the idea of it tho.

Dale

:-) :-)

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