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 1R1kQd-0001uw-QO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:38:28 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C098B21C1AB; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:38:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEBC21C050 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:37:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkbzs8 with SMTP id zs8so1297909bkb.40 for ; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:37:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tzWwu/0mLevsWPmZ89sjuRjl6R+7xAKWhL5dDh4YNlQ=; b=i/cSnYgSglUf/ifO3u2TfOOgkwII12WWD2YAAqo+1h08d0pfvoSm7wG+y0Oh3eDoTN TcLpHQzv5JKxx8+oDJrJayFd/r+OU6T9gEb4MLTWv+Ls+wYNF0RKh4fJeycCEhxhIJT1 k6rfS0ePOJK0pb9Y9I2gL6gMX/zNu4KxUElsU= 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 10.204.148.67 with SMTP id o3mr796063bkv.258.1315510640997; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.155.79 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:37:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201108191109.34984.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <2799076.QhjHdal4hI@pc> <2110889.rUh24Q481G@pc> Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 15:37:20 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 3f3c3ed94993265fd48f87663485bde6 On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Michael Mol wrote: >> This isn't a discussion. This is a bunch of people offering >> displeasure, ideas and/or thoughts, and one person saying, "hey, >> nothing I can do. I trust the devs." > > I disagree: I'm not saying trust the devs and shut up. I'm trying to > explain why *I* trust the devs and why *I* think is for the best for > someone else to do it. Nobody needs to agree with me, of course, I'm > just trying to explain my POV. > >> A discussion is when there's an interchange of ideas, arguments, >> counterarguments, and the fleshing out of a new framework of thought. >> That kind of point/counterpoint is *vital* for architectural >> foresight. All I keep reading from you is, "if you think that will >> work, go write it." *No* writing for a problem of this scope is >> warranted without some extensive discussion, noting of edge cases and >> planning around the same. > > Sorry you read that way; I keep trying to explain why I don't find a > separated /usr a necessity and why I don't think an initramfs is such > a big problem. The rhythmic baseline of your explanation is "and you can use an initramfs for that." I haven't seen much in argument for why initramfs isn't a problem apart from your expectation that the *kernel* will eventually require it, and dracut theoretically solve the problem of updating initrd. (Which sounds nice, but it's yet another moving part in the system, and another point of failure.) >> People have been pointing out edge cases, use cases which are being >> disregarded, etc, and pretty much all they're getting back is "I don't >> see those as valid." > > And I have =C2=A0tried to explain why it's not economically feasible to > support every architecture and every set of configurations. Which I think has been firmly explained in at least two different threads; dev time is not infinite, sure. > Yeah, the only two solutions I see is either roll up with the change, or > maintain it yourself. If those are the only two solutions you see, I suspect you're not looking hard enough. If udev's problem is that it's running arbitrary programs, then perhaps a recognizable constraint needs to be made on what programs udev should run. I thought the primary reason we had /{,s}bin and /usr/{,s}bin was to differentiate between system-vital programs and other programs. > That people don't like the answer doesn't mean is not true. There's also no solid evidence that it's true, either. I remember when sysfs came about. Linux Journal's diff -u column described it as a herculean effort accomplishing something the majority of kernel devs thought impossible or not worth the time. I rather like sysfs, but at one time, it was the thing very few people thought was in the possible set of solutions. >> Granted, you're kinda painting a target on your >> back by being the only one defending upstream's decision here > > Someone has to. I've been using Gentoo almost eight years now, and I > usually don't participate in the dicussions, but I have seen in the > last years a trend to criticize the devs without actually considering > the alternatives. People are beginning to consider alternatives, but you've shot them down without offering improvements, suggesting adjustments or even pointing out specific flaws. As a result, you come across as something akin to a fanboy with your mind already made up, which just seems *bizarre*. > > Sometimes the devs do stupid things; but most of the times they really > think and come to a solution. And the affected users usually just see > how that solution affects them in the short term, instead of trying to > see the big picture and how affects the whole distribution, the > community, and the technological path that Linux is following. For being irritated that people aren't seeing it, you haven't been clarifying it much. >>, but >> when someone pointed at an already-existing alternative, you simply >> said, "I doubt that'll be the solution." > > And I doubt it. But I also said that they are more than welcome to try > wathever they want. I think the way I think; that's the whole point of > me trying to communicate it here. That much is appreciated, but you didn't say *why* you doubt that'll be the solution. Downvotes aren't debate, nor are they discussion. They're expressions of dissatisfaction. >> As for me, this will be a royal inconvenience, and may require the >> rebuilding of my primary machine. Still, I can deal. It'll mean >> learning how to build initramfs*, how to make sure it contains the >> needed tools, and probably a half-dozen other things I didn't even see >> coming when I set up this box last fall. > > I compile my own kernels (no genkernel for me). I don't use modules > (except for the stupid scsi_wait_scan), and I didn't used an initramfs > until I started using systemd. The arguments for using it convinced > me, and I made the switch in all my machines. > > I don't see why it would require to "rebuild" your primary machine, > but I don't know your configuration. I know that any sane > configuration would only require to install dracut and modify a line > in grub. Maybe a kernel rebuild. My / isn't large enough to hold /usr. >> * I've avoided it for ten years it was a grossly unnecessary >> complexity for my systems. Now it sounds like it'll become a >> necessity. > > Apparently. But is not "grossly" unnecessary: udev need it, and udev > solves a kinda complicated problem. Maybe mdev can solve it in a > simpler way. > > But again, I doubt it. One question: Why? Are there specific technical reasons to your doubts, or is it simply confidence that the devs are more likely to have made a good choice than a bad choice? --=20 :wq