Re: [gentoo-user] Apologize to everyone for my nonprofessional

["Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 15, 2011 5:49 AM, "Dale"<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:15:24 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A'right now.  I'm going to start on hal and /usr being on / again.
>>>>>>  :-P
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeez, 43 years on and you're still going on about it...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Dang, I was only a year old when hal came out?  That just doubled my
>>>> age.
>>>>  It's closer to what I feel like tho.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still not happy with /usr being required tho.  That is still
>>>> standing
>>>> on a bad nerve.  Don't worry tho, I got plenty of those bad nerves.  :-P
>>>>
>>> Do you know that there's a plan to move /var/run to / also? ;-)
>>>
>>> Rgds,
>>>
>>>
>>> Now someone on here swears up and down that /var isn't going to be
>>> required
>>> on /.
>>
>> /var != /var/run
>> /var != /var/lock
>>
>> /var/run is going in /run, but /var/run (by definition) only contains
>> things like PID files and runtime sockets. In the same vein, /var/lock
>> also is going into /run/lock. I have acknowledged this from the very
>> beginning, and I have been pointing out that implying that because
>> those two (really small and bounded) directories of /var are going
>> into /run and /run/lock, it doesn't mean that the whole /var will go
>> into /. That is disinformation.
>>
>> Nobody has even proposed that /var should go into the same partition
>> as /. *Nobody*, and the simplest proof of that is that nobody has
>> produced a single proof to the contrary. Not a single email, blog
>> post, or wiki entry from any system developer even mentions the
>> possibility of requiring /var to be in the same partition as /.
>>
>> Whoever says that /var will be required to be on the same partition as
>> / is either wildly speculating, or spreading FUD.
>
> So /var/run and /var/lock isn't on /var?  Even if they will be linking to
> another location, the link has to be there for whatever program to follow.
>  If /var isn't mounted yet, there is nothing for the program to find.

The link goes the other way around. /run and /lock are the real
directories, /var/run is a link to /run, /var/lock is a link to
/run/lock. When the initramfs (or the init system) mount /var, they
make the link.

> When I saw the messages about LVM and /var, that caused LVM to fail to
> start.  I wouldn't put / on LVM and wouldn't expect it to work without a
> init thingy either.  Thing is, based on it failing, you can't have /var on a
> separate partition and expect LVM to start.  So, if you use LVM for /usr
> and/or /var, you have to have a init thingy even if / is on a regular file
> system.

Yes, as I said in my last mail, if you need LVM, you need an
initramfs. Remove the LVM, and you can have /var  (and /usr for that
matter) withouth an initramfs. Where/when did I say something
different?

>>> I'm telling ya'll, /home is coming.
>>
>> That is just ridiculous.
>
> I would have said the same thing about /usr a year ago.  I'm not saying it
> is coming next week but . . .

You can speculate all you want. Fact is, nobody has proposed that, and
there is not even a single email suggesting that it will be necessary.
On the contrary, the requirement for an initramfs or a /usr inside the
same partition as / has been being discussed years ago; if you had
followed the developers lists, you wil had hear about it months before
it happened.

Nothing similar has happened with /var, least of it /home.

>>>   We are going to end up where we
>>> can only have one drive in our Linux boxes for the OS and its relatives.
>>
>> And so is this: more FUD.
>>
>>> That or we will ALL have to start using the pesky init* thingy.
>>
>> More FUD: the current proposal (from Zac, the principal coder of
>> portage, and someone who actually wrotes code and know what he is
>> talking about) is this:
>>
>>
>> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729fe8.xml
>>
>> It basically removes the need for a "pesky init* thingy", although for
>> the life of me I cannot understand why someone will not see the
>> technical advantages of actually using an initramfs.
>
> I'll have to read his link later.

Please do.

>>> I got 7 acres of land here, complete with trees.  If someone can find the
>>> dev that started this mess, I can find some rope.  Just saying.  ;-)  Oh,
>>> I
>>> live half a mile from the river too.  Makes for a good dump site.  lol
>>>
>>> I noticed the other day that when LVM tries to start, it fails.  I have
>>> /var
>>> on a separate partition here.  It was complaining about something on /var
>>> missing.  So, you may be late in reporting this.  I think it is already
>>> needed for LVM if /usr or /var is on a separate partition.
>>
>> Again, get the facts right. If you use LVM you will need to use an
>> initramfs. If you only use a separated /usr you will be able to use
>> Zac's proposal.
>>
>> In no case whatsoever you will be required to have /var on the same
>> partition as /. Nobody has ever proposed that. /run and /run/lock are
>> not /var.
>>
>> Regards.
>
> No one proposed that /usr was required until just recently.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/1337

That was on February 25, this year. *Eight* months ago. And the stable
udev in Gentoo still "supports" (it really doesn't, but whatever) a
separated /usr.

> Saying it won't
> happen really puts you in a bad spot when or if it does.  If you know this
> for sure and certain, I want your crystal ball.

It's called an "educated guess". Of course I could be wrong; but I am
more than willing to bet a nice expensive dinner with anyone that it
is not going to happen in the next ten years. Any takers?

> Just for the record, I don't want a init thingy because it is yet one more
> thing to fail when booting.  I was forced to use one when I was on Mandrake
> and I hated it.  It isn't the only reason I switched but it was one reason.
>  Now that same reason is coming to Gentoo.

No is not: if you are talking about Mandrake and not Mandriva, then
you did not used an initramfs. You used an initrd, and it was
completely different.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México