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 1616C1381FA for ; Sun, 4 May 2014 08:53:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BAA59E09DD; Sun, 4 May 2014 08:53:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost01d.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost01d.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.7]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8606E09B5 for ; Sun, 4 May 2014 08:53:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.69.80.10] (helo=wstn.localnet) by smarthost01d.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WgsAy-000C7K-LF for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 09:53:36 +0100 From: Peter Humphrey To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] boot problems Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 09:53:35 +0100 Message-ID: <6603098.FxQB9JV5gG@wstn> Organization: at home User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.12.13-gentoo; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <536559F1.9090103@xunil.at> References: <5364C0F9.3000906@xunil.at> <4058636.hablKfVxr7@wstn> <536559F1.9090103@xunil.at> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Originating-smarthost01d-IP: [82.69.80.10] X-Archives-Salt: 49a768ea-85b4-4577-80f6-ef298a0f0bbf X-Archives-Hash: 1effb8dc118c344e25b4a515eef3771c On Saturday 03 May 2014 23:04:49 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: > Am 03.05.2014 22:50, schrieb Peter Humphrey: > >> Yes, I noticed that annoyance myself. I would much prefer it to default > >> to > >> more logical names. > > > > If the docs had included that little snippet I'd have saved myself many a > > frustrating hour. I'll only look stupid if I tell you how many ;-) > > > > Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread. I just wanted to point out that > > raid arrays don't need lvm2 or mdraid present to auto-start, at least not > > on my openrc box which also has no initramfs. > > Thanks for your contribution. My pleasure. > I spent nearly the whole day digging around this issue ... You did better than I did recently: I spent four days at it. > I wonder if I speak for more users when I say that all this is kind of > confusing sometimes ... I'm with you there, Stefan. I find the whole RAID and LVM area deeply mysterious, and the docs I've seen only say what to do, not why. I'd still like to find a proper explanation of how it all works. > I am not so far to skip the initramfs -> I don't *know* that, I just > tested removing the line from grub2 and it failed finding the root-fs. I've never had an initramfs, seeing no need in my case to keep /usr on its own partition. > For booting from a plain partition on an SSD I think I shouldn't need an > initramfs? Does it have to do with MBR/GPT as well (the SSD is > still/again MBR, as UEFI booting broke badly for me back then) ? As far as I know, the only thing that /requires/ an initramfs is having a separate /usr. And I can't help you with GPT or UEFI - sorry. > Maybe I learn more soon ;-) I sometimes say that life is just one long journey of discovery :-) -- Regards Peter