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 C64551381FB for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 23:16:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6CF1B21C11A; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 23:15:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gg0-f170.google.com (mail-gg0-f170.google.com [209.85.161.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70CCF21C112 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 23:12:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-gg0-f170.google.com with SMTP id l1so1342613ggn.1 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 15:12:55 -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; bh=kKBdPXWTfifDnIOvjj1rUye/8+SPHMZd+S01nivZbb0=; b=V2xhfIzL0IxT3gzNm6QjIZJoXIi8NT7GBcycWv+eJ68tRU8Nyqii/Mdo9daNGOFGvH lZaKNKeW9hzKBtXzFwOXfnseG8cK3yFe/rDATkupkFyVwIGR/nKmgRw2BYKdJxB2d0bD tySEAyfspwbA1NXKeLzPurl0qKaNdVe1giN+o7w6qrw/66eGZB/RF9ZqP6W2F1zIJEr+ pMCsCHOFD81Zyyyr2MK7oRLEW3k6uR0VXDW8/ZQ5CAaGWlrJGe8ExKFPNIDiOthMhKi5 k+gqymZDHjUwy+SpMEIm+LxdR1vzXw4ebodfcp7AD5Qk9kC/JqD48itawOH5mMXHAIef Y8wA== X-Received: by 10.236.148.70 with SMTP id u46mr24196132yhj.30.1356477175641; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 15:12:55 -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 y9sm20073472anh.20.2012.12.25.15.12.53 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 25 Dec 2012 15:12:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50DA32F5.7080004@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 17:12:53 -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: <20121218163332.7956f31a@khamul.example.com> <50D9D6E0.3000205@gmail.com> <874nja3vbv.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <5831746.pOTOnRtkDK@bluering> In-Reply-To: <5831746.pOTOnRtkDK@bluering> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080507070705030505010502" X-Archives-Salt: 85ec72c7-6eeb-4c63-9a12-5ff1058cca8f X-Archives-Hash: 27cb8e9e5633c0f3a47424ea08f093da This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080507070705030505010502 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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! --------------080507070705030505010502 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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!
--------------080507070705030505010502--