On 03/15/12 22:43, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:47:12PM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>> On 03/15/2012 10:41, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There's always mudev if you don't want to run udev, good luck with that.
>>
>>
>> Got a link? We don't have anything matching in the tree, and Google
Am Donnerstag, 15. März 2012, 21:59:44 schrieb Sergei Trofimovich:
> ls: cannot access
> /gentoo/portage/metadata/cache/kde-base/kdebindings-perl-*: No such file
> or directory ls: cannot access
> /gentoo/portage/metadata/cache/kde-base/kdebindings-ruby-*: No such file
> or directory ...
In the ca
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:47:12PM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 03/15/2012 10:41, Greg KH wrote:
>
> >
> > There's always mudev if you don't want to run udev, good luck with that.
>
>
> Got a link? We don't have anything matching in the tree, and Google turns
> up nothing relevant in the f
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
[...]
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366173
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399615
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405703
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>>
>> I proposed a way that this could work with no effort on the part of the
>> Gentoo developers in one of my earlier emails:
>>
>
> Then go ahead and make it happen. If as you say no dev
On 03/15/2012 10:41, Greg KH wrote:
>
> There's always mudev if you don't want to run udev, good luck with that.
Got a link? We don't have anything matching in the tree, and Google turns
up nothing relevant in the first few pages.
--
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
ku...@gentoo.org
4096R/D25D95E3
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 22:45, Richard Yao wrote:
> I know the UnionFS developer offline. I will ask him what the status of
> unionFS is the next time I see him. :)
Unionfs patchset is regularly released for new kernels, and bugs are
fixed. I wouldn't call the project "dead", I would call it "mat
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:10:50AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> I actually have an original IBM Model M. Manufacture date of July 22nd,
> 1987. And I use Windows on a regular basis. Yet, I get by without the
> windows key quite well. About the only two shortcuts I ever used were WIN+E
> and WI
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> slep noticed and reported an odd thing:
>
> $ euse -i kate
> ...
> ls: cannot access /gentoo/portage/metadata/cache/kde-base/kdebindings-perl-*:
> No such file or directory
> ls: cannot access /gentoo/portage/metadata/cache/kde-base/kde
On Monday 12 of March 2012 01:49:35 Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 04:14:33PM +0100, Ch??-Thanh Christopher Nguy???n
wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> > >> Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
> > >> runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it migh
On 03/15/2012 10:59 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
slep noticed and reported an odd thing:
$ euse -i kate
...
ls: cannot access /gentoo/portage/metadata/cache/kde-base/kdebindings-perl-*:
No such file or directory
ls: cannot access /gentoo/portage/metadata/cache/kde-base/kdebindings-ruby-*:
No
slep noticed and reported an odd thing:
$ euse -i kate
...
ls: cannot access /gentoo/portage/metadata/cache/kde-base/kdebindings-perl-*:
No such file or directory
ls: cannot access /gentoo/portage/metadata/cache/kde-base/kdebindings-ruby-*:
No such file or directory
...
The dirs they don't cont
On 03/15/12 08:34, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 19:27, Richard Yao wrote:
>
>> On 03/14/12 18:49, Greg KH wrote:
2. Why not make rootfs a NFS mount with a unionfs at the SAN/NAS device?
>>>
>>> unionfs is still a "work in progress", some systems can't do that yet.
>>
>> That sounds li
On 03/15/12 08:40, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> I already looked in the tree and nothing really stands out as a suitable
> replacement for /dev management. mdev might, but it's part of busybox and
> not standalone as far as I know (at least, we don't have an independent
> package for it).
Busybox is in
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> The gentoo-news repository has moved from subversion to git some
>> time ago. New news items should be committed to git only, because
>> the master rsync doesn't pull from the svn repository any more.
> Is there a link to the repository anywhere?
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 03:04:36PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> # ls -l /dev/serial
>> ls: cannot access /dev/serial: No such file or directory
>
> Do you have your serial device plugged in? If not, it will not show up.
>
Yup - it is plugged in,
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 03:04:36PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > Why not use the links in /dev/serial/ which are there for this specific
> > reason?
> >
>
> # ls -l /dev/serial
> ls: cannot access /dev/serial: No such file or directory
Do y
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> The gentoo-news repository has moved from subversion to git some time
> ago. New news items should be committed to git only, because the
> master rsync doesn't pull from the svn repository any more.
>
Is there a link to the repository anywh
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:28:03 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Seems that nobody has announced it yet:
>
> The gentoo-news repository has moved from subversion to git some time
> ago. New news items should be committed to git only, because the
> master rsync doesn't pull from the svn repository any
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Why not use the links in /dev/serial/ which are there for this specific
> reason?
>
# ls -l /dev/serial
ls: cannot access /dev/serial: No such file or directory
Something in a newer version of udev perhaps? Or would my defining my
own symlink
Seems that nobody has announced it yet:
The gentoo-news repository has moved from subversion to git some time
ago. New news items should be committed to git only, because the
master rsync doesn't pull from the svn repository any more.
Especially, this concerns the news about udev unmasking that w
On 03/15/2012 05:27 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 20:45, Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> On 03/14/2012 05:36 PM, David Leverton wrote:
>>> On 14 March 2012 23:47, Zac Medico wrote:
It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing.
>>>
>>> Clearly something must have changed in
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:30:49AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> You know - I had a similar issue, but with a pair of PL2303 USB RS232
> interfaces. That makes me wonder if there is a possible way to
> enhance udev to better handle situations where devices have no unique
> ID and thus tend to be di
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 07:04:52AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> Devtmpfs quite literally handles 98% of my particular usage scenario. Does
> that apply to everyone? Nope. Just an interesting observation.
devtmpfs does not handle device permissions.
As for a "smaller" udev, feel free to try, p
On 03/14/2012 19:44, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Oh, and somehow "consensus" will work? No, sorry, it will not.
If compelling arguments were used, yes, you can sometimes trigger people to
change their minds and arrive at a consensus. But outright dismissing them
as if that will make them disappear is
On 03/14/2012 14:56, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 11:36 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 19:58, Matthew Summers
>> wrote:
>>> Why is an in-kernel initramfs so bad anyway? I am baffled. Its quite
>>> nice to have a minimal recovery env in case mounting fails, etc, etc,
>>>
On 03/14/2012 12:28, Matthew Summers wrote:
>
> Gentoo provides a solution with genkernel, dracut provides a solution,
> even the linux kernel itself provides a solution (in my view the
> easiest solution at that).
The kernel doesn't appear to create the networking interfaces, though.
CONFIG_DE
On 03/14/2012 17:13, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 08:07:07AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote
>
>> Ah, bluetooth keyboards. The luddite in me finds those quite
>> the oddity. I still use only PS/2, specifically because it's less
>> complex and less likely to fail on me in a time of ne
On 03/14/2012 16:10, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> Considering this pretty much eliminates using / for anything useful,
> we might as well rename "/usr" "/c"
>
> Even if it /is/ just to confuse the windows crowd =)
Unless you're one of those that installs Windows into D:\ :)
I'd say call it /sys f
On 03/15/2012 08:30, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> You know - I had a similar issue, but with a pair of PL2303 USB RS232
> interfaces. That makes me wonder if there is a possible way to
> enhance udev to better handle situations where devices have no unique
> ID and thus tend to be difficult to access
On 03/14/2012 13:59, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 03/14/2012 10:11 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
>>> What's wrong with:
>>> * having an "early mounts" list file
>>> * having an "early modules" list file
>>> * init system in early boot (e.g., Ope
On 03/14/2012 16:55, Zac Medico wrote:
>> Deprecation of this practice would mean that people could type
>> /bin/command instead of /usr/bin/command in situations where absolute
>> paths are necessary. We could symlink things in /usr to rootfs for
>> compatibility with legacy software. In a more e
On 03/14/2012 19:37, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:27:07PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
3. Why not let the users choose where these directories go and support
both locations?
>>>
>>> Because a plethera of options is a sure way to make sure that half of
>>> them don't work over
On 03/14/2012 19:27, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 03/14/12 18:49, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 06:39:05PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> With that said, I have a few questions:
>>>
>>> 1. Why does no one mention the enterprise use case at all?
>>
>> It has been pointed out before, why const
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> This does lead me to wonder if a light-weight udev could exist that lacks
> half or more of the functionality of the current udev. I'll be honest, I've
> only edited my udev rules file once, and that was only when I installed a
> Sun Happy M
On 03/14/2012 20:45, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 05:36 PM, David Leverton wrote:
>> On 14 March 2012 23:47, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing.
>>
>> Clearly something must have changed in udev 181 to make
>> /usr-without-initramfs not work an
On 03/15/2012 07:20, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 00:29 +, David Leverton wrote:
>> On 14 March 2012 23:44, Greg KH wrote:
>>> Oh, and somehow "consensus" will work? No, sorry, it will not.
>>
>> No, logical analysis will, as I said in the rest of my post which you
>> conve
On 03/14/2012 18:51, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:14:54PM +, David Leverton wrote:
>> On 14 March 2012 21:04, Greg KH wrote:
>>> Haveing a separate /usr is wonderful, and once we finish moving /sbin/
>>> and /bin/ into /usr/ it makes even more sense. See the /usr page at
>>> f
On 03/14/2012 18:14, David Leverton wrote:
> On 14 March 2012 21:04, Greg KH wrote:
>> Haveing a separate /usr is wonderful, and once we finish moving /sbin/
>> and /bin/ into /usr/ it makes even more sense. See the /usr page at
>> fedora for all of the great reasons why this is good.
>
> My po
On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 00:29 +, David Leverton wrote:
> On 14 March 2012 23:44, Greg KH wrote:
> > Oh, and somehow "consensus" will work? No, sorry, it will not.
>
> No, logical analysis will, as I said in the rest of my post which you
> conveniently ignored - either we conclude with evidence
On 03/14/2012 11:04, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Not always, no, it isn't obvious that something didn't start up
> correctly, or that it didn't fully load properly. Some programs later
> on recover and handle things better.
I'm well aware of what I run on my own box, and when something isn't
running, I
Am 15.03.2012 00:37, schrieb Greg KH:
> Not really, I don't think we support systems without udev anymore,
> right? And we get away with a lot of these different "options" at
> compile time, which makes it easier than what Debian has to handle, so
> perhaps it's not a fair comparison.
Sure Gentoo
42 matches
Mail list logo
