From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1S7q8A-0004ze-Sq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:28:51 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 360C6E0A41; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:28:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE64EE0858 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:27:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so1649301bkw.40 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:27:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Gcz0qsR7LItwiVkOSpT82GkDx1XWscQYVZaCMZFiaLo=; b=Ekt7inKECZ+XwCbEXJJrFtlJHYDl0pK/6erZMzrtG/aB1CMIHoXqHd08laA50nUVw3 xqNZ1gR2fNjUrO9qd98nY+qxYO4FW2GB9ud3Zwh8YHsCfcSCe5HRLlUDrPPa2q53NuNS fHh1VgPoY9mSHXeVnWmB/Fwt9+N8bCO5M32l2h75xb3/rIjHPh6YWh69GPiGhrraZeWz 4O35CHIlCo8BSNyn1ZfKdq68C95kj80/5o7h5v5iJ8Jn4NWB93UZrlOXIroLYh0xwzIO piJFIZsEv+jijbpSezlfFIIPwIHKfUCmgxpjLgeQVgLg+JPMEQ2srsNDOmMQ0Zn+rvVb tgKA== 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 Received: by 10.204.154.28 with SMTP id m28mr1123461bkw.102.1331738855811; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:27:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.168.17 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:27:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4F60B72B.1030803@libertytrek.org> References: <20120312092432.GA2959@acm.acm> <20120313073306.GC23544@waltdnes.org> <20120313130534.GB3457@acm.acm> <20120313190052.GA2430@waltdnes.org> <20120313194727.GB2536@acm.acm> <20120313210737.GD2536@acm.acm> <20120313213330.78c5ebf7@digimed.co.uk> <20120313222019.GE2536@acm.acm> <20120313230358.GF2536@acm.acm> <4F60B72B.1030803@libertytrek.org> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:27:35 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5 - failure :-( From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: f6d91a1f-7a6e-4f5c-9250-b28fc7914270 X-Archives-Hash: e6189915b6e571f9b2baf6b416fe2175 On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Tanstaafl wro= te: > On 2012-03-13 8:07 PM, Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s w= rote: >> >> You want it simple? Tha'ts fine, it is possible. It's just that it >> will not solve the general problem, just a very specific subset of it. >> Just as mdev is doing; Walt just posted an email explaining that if >> you use GNOME, KDE, XFCE, or LVM2, mdev is not for you. > > > Very interesting thread guys, and thanks for keeping it relatively civil > despite the passion behind the objections being raised... > > I just wanted to point out one thing (and ask a question about it) to any= one > who argues that servers don't need this - if LVM2 really does eliminate t= he > possibility of using mdev for fundamental reasons (as opposed to arbitrar= y > decisions), that rules out a *lot* of server installations. > > So, that is my question... what is it about LVM2 that *requires* udev? > > Or asked another way - > > Why is LVM2 incapable od using mdev? The presumption is that lvm's dependent binaries would be found somewhere under a mount point other than / (such as /usr), which gives you a chicken-and-egg problem if mounting that mount point requires lvm. --=20 :wq