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 1R1o0i-0004Xj-IR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 23:27:56 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A4F4521C1EB; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 23:27:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B1B21C19C for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 23:26:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwf25 with SMTP id 25so465723wwf.10 for ; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:26:33 -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=Q2UhvDyF65Lql+LusW/vxtZWFVzLY34PHnNXHQ7sQak=; b=RjgLTsuVaEdK1Y8TDk6jzHz4vBEctvRLnrXGXK97s1GNTBwSZG1pjtXm4zqKVYG+WZ 2UH2+76D1+iPs1r8OS+XDH6nrFlnQNb9GsaRe7Ls/mKshVilJf1f06z8vZt7CxpzH+aN WaqMU8NUhWkPFq4GTJvMq5w6kYSU+c/phu3Ms= 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 10.216.221.170 with SMTP id r42mr1269078wep.110.1315524393544; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:26:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.38.140 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:26:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110909010018.5df83ae5@rohan> References: <201108191109.34984.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <20110908212531.69422844@karnak.local> <201109082333.58335.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <20110909010018.5df83ae5@rohan> Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:26:33 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2FuZWsgUGVsw6FleiBWYWxkw6lz?= To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 233c8a7cca7322c1d0fc95dfa583ad6e On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Alan McKinnon wro= te: > On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 18:39:21 -0400 > Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Mick >> wrote: >> > Unless I misunderstood this and referenced threads, all this agro >> > is being generated because udev devs decided to give primacy not to >> > the linux fs and prevailing FHS conventions, but their udev code >> > and what may have been an easy workaround for them? >> > >> > Given that I do not understand the ins and outs of udev, or the way >> > gentoo and upstream manage such proposals and ultimately accept >> > changes, why don't gentoo devs raise alternative options with the >> > Fedora dev or who ever had this idea upstream that udev code effort >> > is more precious than all the workarounds (initramfs, >> > repartitioning, etc.) that some of us have to go through? >> > >> > The alternatives I've read so far that advocate the avoidance of the >> > imposition of an initramfs or merging /usr into / for the sake of a >> > udev design choice, seem more 'intelligent' to me - in a gentoo >> > principle sort of way. >> > >> > On the other hand, for a binary distro the udev dev approach would >> > of course seem less disruptive and therefore our small gentoo user >> > base may need to shout really loud to be heard. >> > >> > Do we get to vote on this? >> >> Not really: you can vote with your feet and use another >> distro/operating system. But the choice is theirs. >> >> > =C2=A0Can we make a difference other than venting here >> > and in the forums? >> >> Yes: design and write a different system. > > That's a really poor answer. You are offering two distasteful options > at either end of the spectrum when the real solution is plainly obvious > right in the middle: > > Communicate to whichever devs are making the calls, explain the issue > caused by the proposed changes, open and entertain dialogue, let all > voices be heard and let sanity prevail. > > You have consistently offered only two realistic options: their way or > the highway. This presumes that the devs involved are impervious to the > concept of dialogue at all, and cannot be contacted or swayed. > > You see, none of that is true. There is *always* a third way and it is > almost always the best possible route to follow. In the case of Gentoo, the dialog is having place in the dev list, at this very moment. In the case of Fedora (and, I think, OpenSuse), the dialog is actually over. The Gentoo devs are just going with the flow. (This is how I see things, I could have some facts wrong). It is not an arbitrary decision, and it is not from one developer (this kind of things never are). The dialog happend (or is happening) among those who construct the stack or the distributions. We have a say, of course (we always do), but I don't really think that it should be that important. I really, truly believe that the decision is (and should be) in the hands of the people actually writing the code. I think this is how Linux rose to be what it is today, and how it will keep going on strong. Sometimes mistakes will be made, and some users will be burned by them. I (personally, IMHO, etc., etc.) don't think this is one of those times. And that is way I'm expressing myself in this thread. That is all. I know what I say a lot of people don't like, but I think it should be said, clear and loud. Regards. --=20 Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingenier=C3=ADa de la Computaci=C3=B3n Universidad Nacional Aut=C3=B3noma de M=C3=A9xico