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 1RF09d-0002iq-U7 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:03:43 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4A90821C15E; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:03:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D1121C150 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:02:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyf19 with SMTP id 19so4525491wyf.40 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 02:02:15 -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=RapBLtmhldkxxDLZ0skgcIIxH09gvZqT7cXm51TMMuw=; b=grHFm6ptfJaUw5WqCPJBbdmLLL80pK4+7qIS4zRTntD8DmJThlH5ZREZPjPAj/p50T bHpWUXsbWKC3zqDgMGgEZ5eJEMrpneeq6xWIhCvHbn3sCPQ3M7DcQwhvt/7wwmbOBu1d LD7xHznNglS8nhjk67uL2EXLsroCXClD+EACQ= 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 10.216.133.219 with SMTP id q69mr3869952wei.79.1318669333757; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 02:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.234.130 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 02:02:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E994657.2030200@gmail.com> References: <4E98601C.3030607@gmail.com> <20111014224110.7acaf5b3@digimed.co.uk> <4E98BBE4.6040306@gmail.com> <4E992E82.5010103@gmail.com> <4E994657.2030200@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 02:02:13 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Apologize to everyone for my nonprofessional 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: 039acb77d26ec1a1ca7e32846eb41c95 On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Dale wrote: > Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Dale =C2=A0wrote= : >>> >>> Pandu Poluan wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 15, 2011 5:49 AM, "Dale" =C2=A0wrote: >>>> >>>> Neil Bothwick wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:15:24 -0500, Dale wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> A'right now. =C2=A0I'm going to start on hal and /usr being on / aga= in. >>>>>> =C2=A0:-P >>>>> >>>>> Jeez, 43 years on and you're still going on about it... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Dang, I was only a year old when hal came out? =C2=A0That just doubled= my >>>> age. >>>> =C2=A0It's closer to what I feel like tho. >>>> >>>> I'm still not happy with /usr being required tho. =C2=A0That is still >>>> standing >>>> on a bad nerve. =C2=A0Don't worry tho, I got plenty of those bad nerve= s. =C2=A0:-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 !=3D /var/run >> /var !=3D /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? =C2=A0Even if they will be linki= ng to > another location, the link has to be there for whatever program to follow= . > =C2=A0If /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. =C2=A0I wouldn't put / on LVM and wouldn't expect it to work witho= ut a > init thingy either. =C2=A0Thing is, based on it failing, you can't have /= var on a > separate partition and expect LVM to start. =C2=A0So, if you use LVM for = /usr > and/or /var, you have to have a init thingy even if / is on a regular fil= e > 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. =C2=A0I'm not say= ing 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. >>> =C2=A0 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_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729f= e8.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. =C2=A0If someone can f= ind the >>> dev that started this mess, I can find some rope. =C2=A0Just saying. = =C2=A0;-) =C2=A0Oh, >>> I >>> live half a mile from the river too. =C2=A0Makes for a good dump site. = =C2=A0lol >>> >>> I noticed the other day that when LVM tries to start, it fails. =C2=A0I= have >>> /var >>> on a separate partition here. =C2=A0It was complaining about something = on /var >>> missing. =C2=A0So, you may be late in reporting this. =C2=A0I 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. =C2=A0If you kno= w 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 mor= e > thing to fail when booting. =C2=A0I was forced to use one when I was on M= andrake > and I hated it. =C2=A0It isn't the only reason I switched but it was one = reason. > =C2=A0Now 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. --=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