Ken Bloom writes:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le lundi 01 juin 2009 à 16:26 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
>> > > What has the initramfs got to do with this?
>> >
>> > For / to be on LVM you need an initramfs. / on raid (with custom
>> > kernel) or plain partition works without one.
>
On Jun 04, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> Do we really need to handle such hotplugs? We could require that
> all boot hardwares must be available short after boot loader. The
> later plugged hardware will be shown only later, when the system
> in up. I see no disadvantage, and make thing easier, mor
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 02, "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" wrote:
>
>> - there is still a close windows in initram, and possibility
>> at early rc scripts.
> No.
>
>> - /var is still not mounted, so programs could not write they status, nor
>> log failures
> So programs which have such requirem
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 01 juin 2009 à 16:26 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> > > What has the initramfs got to do with this?
> >
> > For / to be on LVM you need an initramfs. / on raid (with custom
> > kernel) or plain partition works without one.
>
> I already know that, than
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 02:59:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Jun 03, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 03:50:50PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Nowadays, you cannot use your system if you don’t use udev, so this
> > is irrelevant.
> >
> > I'm writing this mail from a sy
On Jun 03, Carsten Hey wrote:
> I'm writing this mail from a system without udev:
Yes, and nobody cares much. Many functions of modern systems require
udev and more and more will with time.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 03:50:50PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Nowadays, you cannot use your system if you don’t use udev, so this is
> irrelevant.
I'm writing this mail from a system without udev:
$ cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.6.26-1-vserver-686 (Debian 2.6.26-12) (wa...@debian.or
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 12:54 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Josselin Mouette writes:
> > What about those who want a system without libc? Did you think about
> > them?
>
> Yes, we have uclibc for them.
That's still libc. Would you take ucudev, uchal, and ucinitramfs to go
with that?
--
Gu
On Jun 02, "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" wrote:
> - there is still a close windows in initram, and possibility
> at early rc scripts.
No.
> - /var is still not mounted, so programs could not write they status, nor
> log failures
So programs which have such requirements need to take care of waiting
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> This is a summary of last month's thread about the feasibility of
> removing support for /usr on a standalone filesystem.
>
> The issue was raised by the udev upstream maintainer along with the udev
> package maintainers of the major distribut
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le mardi 02 juin 2009 à 11:22 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
>> Still that doesn't mean that the project should depricate support for a
>> separate /usr for the sake of udev. If some want to use an initramfs
>> less kernel let them have a functional system, same goe
Marco d'Itri wrote:
This is relevant for udev becase kernel events can trigger the
execution of programs at the very beginning of the boot when only the
root is mounted.
While currently packages can and do easily implement workarounds for
this situation (like waiting in a loop for the files in /
Le mardi 02 juin 2009 à 11:22 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit :
> Still that doesn't mean that the project should depricate support for a
> separate /usr for the sake of udev. If some want to use an initramfs
> less kernel let them have a functional system, same goes for those that
> prefere a udev
* Josselin Mouette [2009-06-02 10:53]:
> Le lundi 01 juin 2009 à 16:26 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> > > What has the initramfs got to do with this?
> >
> > For / to be on LVM you need an initramfs. / on raid (with custom
> > kernel) or plain partition works without one.
>
> I already
Le lundi 01 juin 2009 à 16:26 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> > What has the initramfs got to do with this?
>
> For / to be on LVM you need an initramfs. / on raid (with custom
> kernel) or plain partition works without one.
I already know that, thanks, but it still doesn’t make your poin
Pierre Habouzit writes:
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 05:13:16PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Pierre Habouzit writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 01:11:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >> Josselin Mouette writes:
>> >> > > - LVM and/or RAID: no real reason nowadays to not us
Pierre Habouzit writes:
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 03:08:02PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> > Think again, if I do such a package, I would obviously check with some
>> > kind of trivial perl programm if the device containing /usr/lib/ro
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 03:08:02PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Think again, if I do such a package, I would obviously check with some
> > kind of trivial perl programm if the device containing /usr/lib/rootkit
> > is mounted with nodev
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Think again, if I do such a package, I would obviously check with some
> kind of trivial perl programm if the device containing /usr/lib/rootkit
> is mounted with nodev, would use mount -o remount,dev on the problematic
> mount point in the preinst, let
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 19:51 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Josselin Mouette writes:
>
> > Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 19:43 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > > All things considered, I have no immediate plan to push for
> > > deprecating a standalone /usr.
> >
> > Thanks for going back.
>
> Seconded.
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 05:13:16PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 01:11:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Josselin Mouette writes:
> >> > > - LVM and/or RAID: no real reason nowadays to not use these for the
> >> > > root
>
Pierre Habouzit writes:
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 01:11:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Josselin Mouette writes:
>> > > - LVM and/or RAID: no real reason nowadays to not use these for the root
>>
>> As long as debian does not provide support for kernel independent non
>> breaking init
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le lundi 01 juin 2009 à 13:11 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
>> As long as debian does not provide support for kernel independent non
>> breaking initramfs support (i.e. not regenerated on every whim and
>> break) having / outside lvm and no initramfs is a real
Le lundi 01 juin 2009 à 13:11 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> As long as debian does not provide support for kernel independent non
> breaking initramfs support (i.e. not regenerated on every whim and
> break) having / outside lvm and no initramfs is a real plus.
What has the initramfs got
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 01:11:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Josselin Mouette writes:
> > > - LVM and/or RAID: no real reason nowadays to not use these for the root
>
> As long as debian does not provide support for kernel independent non
> breaking initramfs support (i.e. not regenerat
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 19:43 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>> All things considered, I have no immediate plan to push for deprecating
>> a standalone /usr.
>
> Thanks for going back. However, if you think this debate is going to
> come back later, maybe we could en
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 19:43 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > All things considered, I have no immediate plan to push for
> > deprecating a standalone /usr.
>
> Thanks for going back.
Seconded. Thanks also, Marco, for notifying us of this change in
direction.
> H
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 19:43 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> All things considered, I have no immediate plan to push for deprecating
> a standalone /usr.
Thanks for going back. However, if you think this debate is going to
come back later, maybe we could ensure that we can remove this support
l
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 07:43:00PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> This is a summary of last month's thread about the feasibility of
> removing support for /usr on a standalone filesystem.
> The issue was raised by the udev upstream maintainer along with the udev
> package maintainers of the major di
29 matches
Mail list logo
