On 19-09-2011 19:19:12 -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> >> Really, MacOS's filesystem layout is not something anyone in their right
> >> mind should deign to mimic/copy.
> >
> > I didn't get that from either of the links you posted. Seems to me the
> > systemd developers are looking at the split as a
On 09/19/2011 03:40 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Oh wait, this all is a joke on me, right? Ok, that makes more sense,
> hahaha, you all got me, good one.
Yes, very funny indeed. It's good to keep your sense of humor.
> Sorry, I was being slow here, next time I'll get it quicker, nice one
> people.
Now
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> That's what I take issue with -- the whims of a commercial enterprise
> ultimately deciding, at some possible, future point, what path we take. In
> other words, those of us not running cluster farms shouldn't have to change
> things, even s
On 09/19/2011 20:29, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> See:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
>
> That is some of the rationale for Fedora. It isn't a bad idea both
> for destop-oriented and server-oriented setups. It especially makes
> sense for a more traditional distro with versioned r
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> Host-specific / and host-independent /usr is not itself a bad idea. I can
> envision quite a few useful scenarios for this. But on a single box, why?
> And for those of us with differing architectures, how would this add any
> benefit? Is
On 09/19/2011 13:36, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 06:37:49AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>> On 09/19/2011 05:10, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Could we stop putting random stuff in random dirs because 'it will
>>> work'? /etc is _SYSCONFDIR_. I don't see how PCI IDs are config at all.
On 09/19/2011 07:17, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 19 September 2011 16:07, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> [...]
>> Yes, but some of us don't even want to have that initramfs built into our
>> kernels. And no one, other than freedesktop.org* and a few people on
>> linux-hotplug-devel*, said everything belon
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> p.s. and yes, this is the only reasonable explanation for this whole
> thread, especially given the fact that this whole thing is explained in
> extreme detail on the freedesktop.org site, and it has been beaten to
> death on this very mailing list
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:46:39PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 19/09/2011 19:36, Greg KH wrote:
> > And for those udev/systemd haters, you all do know about devtmpfs,
> > right? If not, {sigh}, I don't even know why I care anymore...
> >
> > greg "sick of it all" k-h
>
> I'm wondering is if
On 19/09/2011 19:36, Greg KH wrote:
> And for those udev/systemd haters, you all do know about devtmpfs,
> right? If not, {sigh}, I don't even know why I care anymore...
>
> greg "sick of it all" k-h
I'm wondering is if devtmpfs covers what is needed to mount /usr so the
new and grand udev can d
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> Note: I'm brainstorming here. Anyone else?
>
> It's as if people are just totally ignoring what has already been
> discussed here, why should we even pay attention to this anymore?
>
I agree that this is getting a bit off-topic. If anybody want
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 06:37:49AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 09/19/2011 05:10, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> >
> > Could we stop putting random stuff in random dirs because 'it will
> > work'? /etc is _SYSCONFDIR_. I don't see how PCI IDs are config at all.
>
>
> The best answer is for someone
On 19 September 2011 16:07, Joshua Kinard wrote:
[...]
> Yes, but some of us don't even want to have that initramfs built into our
> kernels. And no one, other than freedesktop.org* and a few people on
> linux-hotplug-devel*, said everything belongs in /usr. FHS clearly defines
> the roles for /
On 09/19/2011 05:10, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Could we stop putting random stuff in random dirs because 'it will
> work'? /etc is _SYSCONFDIR_. I don't see how PCI IDs are config at all.
The best answer is for someone to look into udev and see what it needs
exactly from /usr. Does it really nee
Michał Górny wrote:
This should cut all the complaints and possibly let us move some
stuff back to /usr where it belongs.
Not all the complaints.
Dale
:-) :-)
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 04:57:10 -0400
Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 09/19/2011 04:33, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> >
> > Does the patch involve moving even more stuff to rootfs? If I'm
> > going to see /share directory or even more /usr/share files
> > in /lib, then I'm probably going to fork something too
On 09/19/2011 04:33, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Does the patch involve moving even more stuff to rootfs? If I'm going
> to see /share directory or even more /usr/share files in /lib, then I'm
> probably going to fork something too.
Per our original discussion, isn't the only file udev is looking f
On 09/19/2011 04:25, Alec Warner wrote:
> If 'someone' needs to write a patch then I
> assume you will volunteer?
My C is getting better. Don't tempt me...
--
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
ku...@gentoo.org
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frighte
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 04:15:02 -0400
Joshua Kinard wrote:
> But if udev upstream is taking *away* choice, and making /usr
> mandatory (especially if it's because some other distro has this
> offbeat, utopian, überDesktop concept), then that's a bug and someone
> needs to write a patch and send it u
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 09/18/2011 13:26, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't see how this is relevant to the problem of udev and /usr at
>> all. Unless you want to go back to the days of devfs and lots of
>> manual configuration. :)
>
>
> Me either (somewhat
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 03:59:43 -0400
Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 10:33, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>
> > Hi Devs,
> >
> > Not sure if you are aware of the discussions on the gentoo-user
> > list about the upcoming change where systemd and udev require /usr
> > to be available prior to starti
On 09/18/2011 13:26, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>
> I don't see how this is relevant to the problem of udev and /usr at
> all. Unless you want to go back to the days of devfs and lots of
> manual configuration. :)
Me either (somewhat). But I do see is this: If udev is going to make it a
requireme
On 09/15/2011 10:33, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> Hi Devs,
>
> Not sure if you are aware of the discussions on the gentoo-user list about
> the
> upcoming change where systemd and udev require /usr to be available prior to
> starting of udev.
What is systemd again?
Yes, some of us live in a tin
On 09/18/2011 07:27 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> You mean that no Linux users, in particular anyone not running or not
> wanting to run GNOME and Fedora, shouldn't be worried about the way
> some people in the GNOME and Fedora community seem intent to impose
> their ways to everyone else
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
wrote:
> On 18-09-2011 12:59, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> I'm astonished by the large amount of misinformation that is being
>> spread around about systemd. If this originated on the gentoo-user
>> mailing list, I'm disappointed that Gento
On Saturday, September 17, 2011 06:40:03 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36:27AM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> (The other reason I think systemd and udev might merge at some point, or
> at least have good IPC between them, because there is a potential for
> speed gains the
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:27:02 +
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 18-09-2011 12:59, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Michał Górny
> > wrote:
> >> No, there isn't anything traumatic. The only thing systemd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18-09-2011 12:59, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
>> No, there isn't anything traumatic. The only thing systemd folks
>> are doing is nicely asking devs to include systemd unit files
>> whenever nece
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> No, there isn't anything traumatic. The only thing systemd folks are
> doing is nicely asking devs to include systemd unit files whenever
> necessary or use the eclass whenever upstream supplies those files.
>
> In other words, some devs just
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 08:38:31 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Is there something in particular that is causing alarm with systemd?
> All I've seen is a package in the tree and some discussion. I'm sure
> there will be requests for various packages to install some files
> needed for integrations/etc.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> I think putting more pressure so systemd isn't given as granted would be
> more healthy for both those who are not using it (because, again, is an
> aberration for any kind of daemon not written for it) and those that want to
> use it (since
On 9/15/11 1:33 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:31:45 PM Luca Barbato wrote:
On 15/09/2011 16:33, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
Hi Devs,
Not sure if you are aware of the discussions on the gentoo-user list
about the upcoming change where systemd and udev require /usr to
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36:27AM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > > Either udev does this already and the execution sequence is always the
> > > same. In which case my suggestion above would follow the same sequence
> > > as the queue would be on a First-in First-out basis.
> > > Or, if udev doe
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:18:27 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:00:47PM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > > See below on the existing udev retry queue that is hiding many of
> > > the
> > > issues from you. This hidden issues are also negatively affecting
> > > boot
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:25:12AM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > I've found that dracut is pretty auto-magic by default and the config file
> > doesn't generally need tampering. Most of the options are to NOT load
> > modules or to minimize the initramfs size by figuring out what modules are
>
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 08:32:17 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > Will the ebuild automatically add all the different modules into the
> > /etc/dracut.conf ?
> > Please note, I am asking these questions to put my mind at ease and
> > hope
On Friday, September 16, 2011 12:27:19 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:13:15 +0200
>
> Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > I think systemd is nice for desktops/laptops. But on servers it seems
> > to be overkill to me and as I umount filesystems as part of my
> > backup-scripts, having som
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> Will the ebuild automatically add all the different modules into the
> /etc/dracut.conf ?
> Please note, I am asking these questions to put my mind at ease and
> hopefully
> be able to explain all this back to the people on gentoo-user.
>
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:13:15 +0200
Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> I think systemd is nice for desktops/laptops. But on servers it seems
> to be overkill to me and as I umount filesystems as part of my
> backup-scripts, having something force-mount them in the background
> is going to kill those scripts
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:00:47PM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > See below on the existing udev retry queue that is hiding many of the
> > issues from you. This hidden issues are also negatively affecting boot
> > times (failures and retries take time).
> I don't actually mind too much about th
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 03:56:19 PM William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:27:06AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 09/15/2011 09:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > > Thank you for your response, however, I do have a few questions
> > > about this. Where will this default initramfs
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 01:34:50 PM Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 01:03 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > But, with udev then failing, will there be the /dev-entries to mount the
> > different partitions to fix the environment?
>
> I the preferred approach is to enable CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y a
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 08:31:51 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:03:53PM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:27:06 AM Zac Medico wrote:
> > > On 09/15/2011 09:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > > > Thank you for your response, however,
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 04:27:35 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:27:06 AM Zac Medico wrote:
> > > It should be similar to how sys-apps/v86d is used for uvesafb
> > > support.
> > > It installs /usr/shar
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 04:54:38 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > It is my understanding all the options need to be specified every time
> > dracut
> > is run to create an initramfs. If this becomes mandatory, will this be
> > added
> > t
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 01:45:23PM -0700, "Paweee Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 9/15/11 1:14 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:03:53 +0200
> > Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> >
> >> I'm trying to think of how best to avoid users who are not aware to
> >> get caught with non-booting systems.
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 07:41:57 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:33:01PM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > The use for an initrd/initramfs/... will create an additional layer of
> > complexity a lot of us users are not really waiting for, especially as
> > we are not
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:27:06AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 09:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > Thank you for your response, however, I do have a few questions about this.
> > Where will this default initramfs actually need to be placed?
>
> It should be similar to how sys-apps/v8
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>
> It is my understanding all the options need to be specified every time
> dracut
> is run to create an initramfs. If this becomes mandatory, will this be
> added
> to the "make" script of the kernel-sources and as such, make this more
> s
On 9/15/11 1:14 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:03:53 +0200
> Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to think of how best to avoid users who are not aware to
>> get caught with non-booting systems.
>
> Guess we could try to detect a few common cases and die in pkg_setup()
> when
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 02:29:20 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 09/15/2011 07:33 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > > The use for an initrd/initramfs/... will create an additional layer
> > > of
> > > complexity a lot of us users are not rea
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 16:14:20 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:03:53 +0200 Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > I'm trying to think of how best to avoid users who are not aware to
> > get caught with non-booting systems.
>
> Guess we could try to detect a few common cases and die in p
On 09/15/2011 01:03 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:27:06 AM Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 09/15/2011 09:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>>> Thank you for your response, however, I do have a few questions about
>>> this. Where will this default initramfs actually need to be
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:31:45 PM Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 15/09/2011 16:33, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > Hi Devs,
> >
> > Not sure if you are aware of the discussions on the gentoo-user list
> > about the upcoming change where systemd and udev require /usr to be
> > available prior to sta
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:03:53PM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:27:06 AM Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 09/15/2011 09:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > > Thank you for your response, however, I do have a few questions about
> > > this. Where will this default initram
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:27:06 AM Zac Medico wrote:
> > It should be similar to how sys-apps/v86d is used for uvesafb support.
> > It installs /usr/share/v86d/initramfs and when you configure your
> > kernel, you set CONFIG_INITR
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:03:53 +0200
Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> I'm trying to think of how best to avoid users who are not aware to
> get caught with non-booting systems.
Guess we could try to detect a few common cases and die in pkg_setup()
whenever the failure is imminent.
--
Best regards,
Micha
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:27:06 AM Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 09:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > Thank you for your response, however, I do have a few questions about
> > this. Where will this default initramfs actually need to be placed?
>
> It should be similar to how sys-apps/
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:33:01PM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> The use for an initrd/initramfs/... will create an additional layer of
> complexity a lot of us users are not really waiting for, especially as we are
> not seeing any issues with our current systems.
See below on the existing ude
On 15/09/2011 16:33, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> Hi Devs,
>
> Not sure if you are aware of the discussions on the gentoo-user list about
> the
> upcoming change where systemd and udev require /usr to be available prior to
> starting of udev.
systemd seems more and more just a support burden for n
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 07:33 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > The use for an initrd/initramfs/... will create an additional layer of
> > complexity a lot of us users are not really waiting for, especially as we
> are
> > not seeing any issues with our cu
On 09/15/2011 09:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> Thank you for your response, however, I do have a few questions about this.
> Where will this default initramfs actually need to be placed?
It should be similar to how sys-apps/v86d is used for uvesafb support.
It installs /usr/share/v86d/initramfs
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 08:07:35 AM Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 07:33 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > The use for an initrd/initramfs/... will create an additional layer of
> > complexity a lot of us users are not really waiting for, especially as
> > we are not seeing any issues with
On 09/15/2011 07:33 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> The use for an initrd/initramfs/... will create an additional layer of
> complexity a lot of us users are not really waiting for, especially as we are
> not seeing any issues with our current systems.
Like it or not, it's the simplest possible sol
Hi Devs,
Not sure if you are aware of the discussions on the gentoo-user list about the
upcoming change where systemd and udev require /usr to be available prior to
starting of udev.
I would like to know what the position of the Gentoo developers is with
regarding this and how best to deal wit
65 matches
Mail list logo
