On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
> So this setup is working and boots fine here. We might want to recomend
> dracut as initrd solution in case of separate usr.
I think it still needs some work, but it is getting there. I
documented my own solution at:
http://rich0gentoo.wo
Hi all!
Today I tryed masked version of udev and kmod. My setup has all on lvm2
and i have sepparate usr patrition. To generate initrd i use dracut and
genkernel branch from aidecoe. dracut since 0.14 has ability to mount
usr from initrd.
x201 ~ # lvs
LVVG Attr LSize Origin
On 01/21/2012 03:45 PM, Dale wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 01/21/2012 01:34 PM, Dale wrote:
>>> Michał Górny wrote:
> It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are
> being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't
> need the initramfs even if
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 01/21/2012 01:34 PM, Dale wrote:
>> Michał Górny wrote:
It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are
being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't
need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the
>>>
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:34:39 -0600
> Dale wrote:
>
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600
>>> Dale wrote:
>>>
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600
> Dale wrote:
>
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Jan
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:34:39 -0600
Dale wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600
> > Dale wrote:
> >
> >> Michał Górny wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600
> >>> Dale wrote:
> >>>
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600
>
On 01/21/2012 01:34 PM, Dale wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
>>> It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are
>>> being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't
>>> need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the
>>> recent so called "impro
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600
> Dale wrote:
>
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600
>>> Dale wrote:
>>>
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600
> Dale wrote:
>
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Jan
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600
Dale wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600
> > Dale wrote:
> >
> >> Michał Górny wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600
> >>> Dale wrote:
> >>>
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
>
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600
> Dale wrote:
>
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600
>>> Dale wrote:
>>>
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
>> * Micha?? Górny schrieb:
>
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600
Dale wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600
> > Dale wrote:
> >
> >> Michał Górny wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
> >>> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> >>>
> * Micha?? Górny schrieb:
>
> > Does working hard
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600
Dale wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Micha?? Górny schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
I guess, he means keeping udev in / ?
Because a
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600
Dale wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
> > Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> >
> >> * Micha?? Górny schrieb:
> >>
> >>> Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
> >> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ?
> > Be
Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Dale wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigeltwrote:
* Micha?? Górnyschrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
I guess, he means keeping udev in / ?
Because a
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Dale wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
>> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>>
>>> * Micha?? Górny schrieb:
>>>
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
>>>
>>> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ?
>>
>> Be
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Micha?? Górny schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
I guess, he means keeping udev in / ?
Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then put
more work jus
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 20:05:47 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> You should consider taking like 1 or 2 hours of your precious time to
>> read about the use and meaning of various directories in the
>> filesystem.
>>
>
> The FHS
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 20:05:47 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
[snip]
>
> You should consider taking like 1 or 2 hours of your precious time to
> read about the use and meaning of various directories in the
> filesystem.
>
The FHS gives different meaning to directories than the systemd folks
like it t
Alec Warner wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
It is a hack.
Your opinion is noted, but that doesn't make better or worse than
other folks ideas.
-A
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
I agree. It doesn't break things that was working either.
Dale
:-) :-)
--
I am
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:34:34 -0600
> Dale wrote:
>
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>> > On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:40:01 -0600
>> > Dale wrote:
>> >
>> I keep hoping that all the smart people involved in this will see
>> the mess it is creating
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:34:34 -0600
> Dale wrote:
>> I already stated the reason. I'm going to put /usr on LVM. That is
>> not only a good reason, it is a GREAT reason.
>
> It is a hack.
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove#Be
Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:34:34 -0600
Dale wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:40:01 -0600
Dale wrote:
I keep hoping that all the smart people involved in this will see
the mess it is creating. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed
but I'm sharp enough to se
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:03:50 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:44:31 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > >> I think it is more like people do that when they have a good
> > >> reason to do so. I plan to put mine on /usr w
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:44:31 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> >> I think it is more like people do that when they have a good reason
> >> to do so. I plan to put mine on /usr when I get the chance and
> >> know that this init crap isn't going to b
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:34:34 -0600
Dale wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:40:01 -0600
> > Dale wrote:
> >
> I keep hoping that all the smart people involved in this will see
> the mess it is creating. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed
> but I'm sharp enou
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:40:01 -0600
Dale wrote:
I keep hoping that all the smart people involved in this will see
the mess it is creating. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but
I'm sharp enough to see the mess this is going to create and I'm
just a desktop user. I feel
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
>> I think it is more like people do that when they have a good reason
>> to do so. I plan to put mine on /usr when I get the chance and know
>> that this init crap isn't going to break my rig. It's not being
>> "awesome" either.
> Remind me of a s
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:41:04 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> Remind me of a single good reason. Last time I heard those were mostly
> hacks and laziness.
Here's one: ability to share disk space automatically between /usr
and /home (implication: must be same filesystem; useful because these
are the t
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:40:01 -0600
Dale wrote:
> >> I keep hoping that all the smart people involved in this will see
> >> the mess it is creating. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but
> >> I'm sharp enough to see the mess this is going to create and I'm
> >> just a desktop user. I feel sor
Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10.01.2012 19:56, Dale wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico
Weigelt wrote:
* Micha?? Górny schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages
statically?
I guess
Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Dale wrote:
Took me days to get dracut to work. Where does 15 minutes come from? How
much time does it take when the initramfs fails?
I've used dracut on a few VMs now and on my main Gentoo box. My
experience has been that it didn't take
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:56:11 -0600
Dale wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Micha?? Górny schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
I guess, he means keeping udev in / ?
Because a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10.01.2012 19:56, Dale wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 Enrico
>> Weigelt wrote:
>>
>>> * Micha?? Górny schrieb:
>>>
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages
statically?
>>> I guess, he m
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Dale wrote:
> Took me days to get dracut to work. Where does 15 minutes come from? How
> much time does it take when the initramfs fails?
I've used dracut on a few VMs now and on my main Gentoo box. My
experience has been that it didn't take long to figure out,
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:03:15 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> The mess was created by people shouting 'hey, real men use
> separate /usr for no good reason! Be awesome like us'.
You appear to be confusing "I don't understand this" with "no-one
understands this".
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
De
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:56:11 -0600
Dale wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
> > Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> >
> >> * Micha?? Górny schrieb:
> >>
> >>> Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
> >> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ?
> > Be
Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Micha?? Górny schrieb:
Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
I guess, he means keeping udev in / ?
Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then put
more work jus
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Micha?? Górny schrieb:
>
> > Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
>
> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ?
Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then put
more work just to ensure
* Micha?? Górny schrieb:
> Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically?
I guess, he means keeping udev in / ?
cu
--
--
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/
phone: +49 36207 519931
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:58:53 +0100
> Michael Weber wrote:
>
>> Concern is to sustain the freedom of choice that brought me to Gentoo.
>>
>> Please provide systemd as an option.
>> And provide sysvinit/openrc as an option.
>> Do __not__ make a
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:58:53 +0100
Michael Weber wrote:
> Concern is to sustain the freedom of choice that brought me to Gentoo.
>
> Please provide systemd as an option.
> And provide sysvinit/openrc as an option.
> Do __not__ make an initrd mandatory.
And I'd like to have the freedom of having
On 01/08/2012 02:58 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> do you need udevd in runlevel boot at all (for sysvinit)?
>
> Given either your kernel knows its root hardware device driver or has
> an initrd to load needed modules to mount the root filesystem.
>
> You can have CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
do you need udevd in runlevel boot at all (for sysvinit)?
Given either your kernel knows its root hardware device driver or has
an initrd to load needed modules to mount the root filesystem.
You can have CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_M
On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 08:01:17PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote
> Great. Perhaps you could create some unusual setups (perhaps in a
> full-VM), so we can build an test platform on it.
>
> IIRC the main problem are scenarios where /usr is not available
> at boot, eg. has to be mounted from somewher
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 00:47:21 +0100
Lars Wendler wrote:
> Am Freitag 06 Januar 2012, 17:07:20 schrieb Alex Alexander:
> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 08:35:32AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Alex Alexander
> > > wrote:
> > > > If people are really interested in keepi
Am Freitag 06 Januar 2012, 17:07:20 schrieb Alex Alexander:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 08:35:32AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > > If people are really interested in keeping a tight, self contained
> > > root, we need to:
> > >
> > > - esta
On 01/07/2012 07:58 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> That seems like an awfully large initramfs to load into memory for every
> boot, just to have it wiped from memory after switching to the real
> root. It's fine as long as you're not trying to shave every last
> microsecond off of your boot time though.
T
* Walter Dnes schrieb:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote
>
> > This is just our donation, I'm hoping others will join in.
> > For the actual development, half of the resources should be
> > fine, but testing dozens of uncommon scenarios will eat up
> > a multiple of
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 19:41:39 -0500
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
> In my 3 gig /usr directory, over 2 gigs are devoted to
> Gentoo-specific stuff that a binary distro like Redhat does not
> require. What do we do if /usr is read-only? Symlink or bindmount
> onto it?
Remount read/write whenever necessa
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 22:58:58 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> An alternative approach to a having a bulky initramfs "recovery
> partition" like yours would be to put the content of a livecd/usb
> recovery disk onto a spare partition, and configure your lean busybox
> initramfs to mount that as the root
On 01/06/2012 07:10 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
> On 01/05/2012 03:40 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> The FHS notion of "root filesystem as a recovery partition" existed long
>> before the relatively modern development of things like busybox and
>> initramfs made it more practical to use an initramfs as a re
On 01/05/2012 03:40 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> The FHS notion of "root filesystem as a recovery partition" existed long
> before the relatively modern development of things like busybox and
> initramfs made it more practical to use an initramfs as a recovery
> partition. Anyone who wouldn't prefer to
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:59:45 -0500
Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 19:41 -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 01:51:26PM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote
> >
> > > No no no, the idea is that once all binaries are in /usr, you can
> > > easily share /usr between different
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote
> This is just our donation, I'm hoping others will join in.
> For the actual development, half of the resources should be
> fine, but testing dozens of uncommon scenarios will eat up
> a multiple of that.
I'm not a C programmer, ba
On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 19:41 -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 01:51:26PM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote
>
> > No no no, the idea is that once all binaries are in /usr, you can easily
> > share /usr between different systems and do updates in a sane way.. You
> > can also mount /usr r
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 01:51:26PM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote
> No no no, the idea is that once all binaries are in /usr, you can easily
> share /usr between different systems and do updates in a sane way.. You
> can also mount /usr read-only, but still have / be read-write.
One size does not f
* Micha?? G?rny schrieb:
> > I was talking about other things, like giving up the typical
> > unix-style separation of subsystems, all the bloating happening
> > in certain DE's and then pulling down that bloat to the system
> > level (just starting w/ dbus)
>
> Yes, three arguments and just a o
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 19:41:27 +0100
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Micha?? G?rny schrieb:
>
> > > I don't want to repeat all the arguments, why these
> > > Windows-imitator guys are completely wrong, anymore. (IMHO
> > > already been said in this thread).
> >
> > Yes, having a single locations for al
* Micha?? G?rny schrieb:
> > I don't want to repeat all the arguments, why these Windows-imitator
> > guys are completely wrong, anymore. (IMHO already been said in this
> > thread).
>
> Yes, having a single locations for all applications is so-windows. We
> should go the other way then, and cre
* Patrick Lauer schrieb:
> Please don't try to bring the GnomeOS vision of having MacOS without
> paying for it to my computing experience ...
+10
cu
--
--
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/
phone: +
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 18:50:49 +0100
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> I don't want to repeat all the arguments, why these Windows-imitator
> guys are completely wrong, anymore. (IMHO already been said in this
> thread).
Yes, having a single locations for all applications is so-windows. We
should go the othe
* William Hubbs schrieb:
Hi folks,
> a significant change is taking place with several upstreams that will affect
> us in gentoo, so I wanted to bring it to the list for discussion.
>
> Udev, kmod (which is a replacement for module-init-tools which will be needed
> by >=udev-176), systemd, and
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 08:35:32AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > If people are really interested in keeping a tight, self contained root,
> > we need to:
> >
> > - establish a [tight] list of software we consider critical for /
> > - fix/pat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/01/12 03:16 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> Perhaps keep 'init' as a fairly simple codebase and run 'systemd'
> as pid 2 and they can chat with each other (over dbus?)
>
I seriously hope that was a troll... the whole point of systemd, as I
understa
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> If people are really interested in keeping a tight, self contained root,
> we need to:
>
> - establish a [tight] list of software we consider critical for /
> - fix/patch software in that list so it can run without /usr there
> - create /bin
On 05-01-2012 21:15:41 -0500, Olivier Crête wrote:
> The big reason for C vs shell scripts is that the type of people who
> write them are not the same.. The type of people who write shell scripts
> tend to hack together stuff until it works. The people who write C tend
> to think about the problem
2012/1/5 Olivier Crête :
> On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 08:44 +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide
>> > more functionality than any other init system, more correctness
>> > (seriously, di
* Olivier Crête schrieb am 06.01.12 um 03:15 Uhr:
> On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 08:44 +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide
> > > more functionality than any other init system, more co
On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 08:44 +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
> [snip]
> > The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide
> > more functionality than any other init system, more correctness
> > (seriously, did you ever read most init script
On 6 January 2012 06:14, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
> [snip]
>> The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide
>> more functionality than any other init system, more correctness
>> (seriously, did you ever read most init scripts out there?
On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
[snip]
> The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide
> more functionality than any other init system, more correctness
> (seriously, did you ever read most init scripts out there?), more well
> defined behavior (all systemd systems b
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:08:44PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
> William Hubbs wrote:
> > > Or will /etc move to /usr too?
> >
> > No, /etc isn't going anywhere.
>
> Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
> put /etc inside your
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 23:06:18 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> > I don't claim they're crazy. I claim they're sacrificing
> > functionality, correctness, loose coupling, simplicity, well defined
> > behaviour, understandability and stability in order to implement
> > questionable new shiny things.
>
> A
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 21:09:35 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:02:09 -0500
> Olivier Crête wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
> > > William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > > Or will /etc move to /usr too?
> > > >
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 21:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:02:09 -0500
> Olivier Crête wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
> > > William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > > Or will /etc move to /usr too?
> > > >
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:02:09 -0500
Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
> > William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > Or will /etc move to /usr too?
> > >
> > > No, /etc isn't going anywhere.
> >
> > Are you sure? I heard a ru
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
> William Hubbs wrote:
> > > Or will /etc move to /usr too?
> >
> > No, /etc isn't going anywhere.
>
> Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
> put /etc inside your initrd
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:08:44PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Or will /etc move to /usr too?
> >
> > No, /etc isn't going anywhere.
>
> Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
> put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it).
> Obviously, y
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
> put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it).
While I can't speak to your comments about being unable to restart
daemons with systemd (hope this isn
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> > Or will /etc move to /usr too?
>
> No, /etc isn't going anywhere.
Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to
put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it).
Obviously, you'd have to reboot if
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 07:27:49AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> 2012/1/5 Ulrich Mueller
> >
> > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>
> > There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation.
> > The FHS has a nice definition: "The contents of the root filesystem
> > must
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:49:42 -0500
Olivier Crête wrote:
That's why you have dracut to do it for you.
Which is keyworded at this point. Stable users do what?
It's keyworded for only two arches.
And amd64 is one of them. I'd say it is a fairly popular arch too. ;-)
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:49:42 -0500
Olivier Crête wrote:
> > > That's why you have dracut to do it for you.
> > Which is keyworded at this point. Stable users do what?
It's keyworded for only two arches.
> This is a discussion about the future... Changing keywords is trivial
> if we care.
Oh,
On 01/04/2012 09:32 AM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 18:12 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
What mistakes?
>>
>>> The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
>>> thumb which becomes more and more blurry ove
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 07:26:05PM +0100, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> For example, to make that FHS definition be reality there are (can
> be) runlevels that will only boot a system with all basic stuff
> required to mount the rootfs and make root being able to login to
> the local text console. Thes
On 04-01-2012 20:26:27 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> We use hacks to move shared libraries to rootfs, and then create one
> more hack to not confuse the linker with different locations of static
> and shared libraries.
So your point is that the reasons why this was originally done are now
no longer
On 04-01-2012 20:28:01 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > And a compiler. If I mess up some important system component, I'd
> > > really use one. And package manager. And backup system libraries...
> >
> > Time for your PXE boot from net to just bring back a sane image or so.
>
> My PXE boot from n
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 20:00:51 +0100
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 04-01-2012 19:50:24 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 18:12:18 +0100
> > Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >
> > > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
> > >
> > > >> What mistakes?
> > >
> > > > The mistake of introd
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:48:03 +0100
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Defining a prefix is no "hack", it is an option you can use.
>
> Anyway, we both have probably enough packages with such a "hack"
> installed, but i cannot find a single file in /lib/pkgconfig, not even
> that dir does exist. Is it differ
On 04-01-2012 13:51:26 -0500, Olivier Crête wrote:
> No no no, the idea is that once all binaries are in /usr, you can easily
> share /usr between different systems and do updates in a sane way.. You
> can also mount /usr read-only, but still have / be read-write.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.li
On 04-01-2012 19:50:24 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 18:12:18 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > >> What mistakes?
> >
> > > The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
> > > thumb which becomes mo
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> Given that these tools are being moved to /usr and/or duplicated to in
> initrd , what is the point of a root filesystem anyway now? Just to
> mount other things on? Just to store /etc ?
>
> Or will /etc move to /usr too?
I'd recommend reading
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 07:27 +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> 2012/1/5 Ulrich Mueller
> >
> > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>
> > There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation.
> > The FHS has a nice definition: "The contents of the root filesystem
> > must be adeq
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 18:12:18 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> >> What mistakes?
>
> > The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
> > thumb which becomes more and more blurry over time, and hacking
> > packages just to make
Michał Górny schrieb:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:06:11 +0100
> Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
>> Michał Górny schrieb:
>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:47:38 +0100
>>> Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>>
2. switching from udev to mdev (avoids required /usr of udev)
3. some wrapper script to mount /usr before ude
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 07:27:49 +1300
Kent Fredric wrote:
> 2012/1/5 Ulrich Mueller
> >
> > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>
> > There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation.
> > The FHS has a nice definition: "The contents of the root filesystem
> > must be ade
2012/1/5 Ulrich Mueller
>
> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
> There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation.
> The FHS has a nice definition: "The contents of the root filesystem
> must be adequate to boot, restore, recover, and/or repair the system."
>
Given t
* Olivier Crête schrieb am 04.01.12 um 18:32 Uhr:
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 18:12 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > >> What mistakes?
> >
> > > The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
> > > thumb which becomes more an
On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 18:12 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> >> What mistakes?
>
> > The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
> > thumb which becomes more and more blurry over time, and hacking
> > packages just to make i
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote:
>> What mistakes?
> The mistake of introducing a pointless separation based on a rule of
> thumb which becomes more and more blurry over time, and hacking
> packages just to make it work.
There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separati
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
