On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:27:29 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> > 3. More support for mdev; e.g. https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev
> > and (still in beta) https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev/Automount_USB
> > The next challenge is "custom mdev rules", which should be do-able.
>
> I don't think we shou
On 07/18/2012 08:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> I don't think we should give more support to building a system from
> a statically linked rescue suite tool.
For people wanting to shave some seconds from their boot openrc using
busybox is quite handy and should be used as default IMHO.
lu
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:05:39 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> As others have mentioned, coreutils doesn't impact the initramfs much
> anyway, though other tools like mdadm/lvm/etc are more likely to.
>
> I think the more practical issue is that it isn't straightforward to
> do in an automated way. I
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 07:04:15PM -0700, Olivier Cr?te wrote
> The rescue system should be entirely separate from the main system, so
> it survives mishandled upgrades. So having that should not hinder how
> your main system is built. So you should have it as a separate partition
> or you can even
On 07/18/2012 02:25 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> 1) There are no truly mature tools for automatically generating and
> installing an initramfs based on system requirements. Canek likes to
> recommend dracut, which still isn't marked stable. I've gotten stable
> genkernel to work reasonably, but its err
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> I'm not really following your logic here, so forgive me. I completely
> understand why folks do not say, rebuild their kernel when it is
> updated (kernel configs are annoying.)
>
> However lets say I have coreutils in / and coreutils in my
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 18:24 -0700, Matthew Marlowe wrote:
>
>> - It would be nice if the rootfs used a snapshot based filesystem and
>> if the bootloader was intelligent enough to easily allow admins to
>> boot to older snapshots as an expect
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 18:24 -0700, Matthew Marlowe wrote:
> > It would be nice if a sensible structure could be proposed and
> > agreed by ALL Linux distributions (coordinated with BSD).
> >
>
> +1
>
> If a new file system standard is required, my preferences based on a
> history of what is worke
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:27:29PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:35:02 -0400
> "Walter Dnes" wrote:
>
> > 3. More support for mdev; e.g. https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev
> > and (still in beta) https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev/Automount_USB
> > The next challenge is "c
On 07/19/12 03:05, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>> AFAIK, neither genkernel nor dracut were expected to get tied to the
>> Gentoo update process. Has that changed?
> We don't even update kernels as part of the regular update process,
> let alone initram
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:06:41PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> >
> > 3. More support for mdev; e.g. https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev and
> > (still in beta) https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev/Automount_USB The
> > next challenge is "c
> It would be nice if a sensible structure could be proposed and
> agreed by ALL Linux distributions (coordinated with BSD).
>
+1
If a new file system standard is required, my preferences based on a
history of what is worked and changed over the last 20-30 years would
be:
- OK with requiring / a
In the beginning there were root (/bin) and /usr programs
See UNIX Programmer's Manual (Thompson, Ritchie, November
1971). [http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/manintro.pdf]
/usr programs were "not considered part of the UNIX system"
[bottom of page ii].
Root (/) contained all the system file
Rich Freeman wrote:
> 5. When something goes wrong you can get a dash/bash shell
..
> useful even if you don't have firefox+X11 in your initramfs.
This is one of the first videographed use cases for coreboot.
The initramfs in the video[1] admittedly does not have a browser.
Those days, boot fla
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>> So your initramfs doesn't include network tools such as ping,
>> traceroute or wget. Fine. Fundamentally speaking, why shouldn't
>> someone else's?
>
> So, an initramfs is just a piece of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 18/07/12 04:05 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> [...] However lets say I have coreutils in / and coreutils in my
> initramfs. I upgrade coreutils from v1 to v2. Are you saying that
> you are too afraid to update coreutils in / and then also update it
> in
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>> AFAIK, neither genkernel nor dracut were expected to get tied to the
>> Gentoo update process. Has that changed?
>
> We don't even update kernels as part of the regular update process,
>
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> So your initramfs doesn't include network tools such as ping,
> traceroute or wget. Fine. Fundamentally speaking, why shouldn't
> someone else's?
So, an initramfs is just a piece of kernel functionality. You can do
almost ANYTHING in an initr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 18/07/12 03:55 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 18/07/12 03:47 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Canek Peláe
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 18/07/12 03:47 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Michael Mol
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The real
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 18/07/12 03:47 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Michael Mol
>> wrote:
>>
>> The real benefit is that it allows you to mount any partition, if
>> the tools
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
AFAIK, neither genkernel nor dracut were expected to get tied to
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>> AFAIK, neither genkernel nor dracut were expected to get tied to the
>>> Gentoo update process. Has that changed?
>>
>> We don't e
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:12:14 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Michael Mol
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Alec Warner
> >> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>> Debian uses initramfs-tools...
> >>
>
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>> [snip]
Debian uses initramfs-tools...
>>>
>>> AFAIK, neither g
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>> AFAIK, neither genkernel nor dracut were expected to get tied to the
>> Gentoo update process. Has that changed?
>
> We don't even update kernels as part of the regular update process,
>
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Debian uses initramfs-tools...
>>
>> AFAIK, neither genkernel nor dracut were expected to get tied to the
>> Gento
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> AFAIK, neither genkernel nor dracut were expected to get tied to the
> Gentoo update process. Has that changed?
We don't even update kernels as part of the regular update process,
let alone initramfs systems.
In general you update them togeth
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
[snip]
>> Debian uses initramfs-tools...
>
> AFAIK, neither genkernel nor dracut were expected to get tied to the
> Gentoo update process. Has that changed?
The kernel you are running (if yo
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
[snip]
>> To me, it looks a lot like what once was / is now expected to be an
>> initramfs, which I find extraordinarily problematic, for the following
>> reasons:
>>
>> 1) There are no tru
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:40:12 +0100
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:35:58 -0500
>>> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>> > All the arguments for keeping /bin, /sbin, /u
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:35:02 -0400
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 07:12:09PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 07:19:48PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> > >
> > > Looking at @system and what it typically pulls into @world, the
> > > only thing that might cause a
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:40:12 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:35:58 -0500
>> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> > All the arguments for keeping /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, and /usr/sbin
>> > separated are really instances of
On 18-07-2012 14:11:07 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
> Worse, I think /home to /Users is an *egregiously* poor choice; any
> native English speaker who has rudimenatry (or even intimate)
> knowledge of how things previously worked would be very likely to
> confuse /Users with the historical /usr.
You
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>
> 3. More support for mdev; e.g. https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev and
> (still in beta) https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev/Automount_USB The
> next challenge is "custom mdev rules", which should be do-able.
Interesting. Can you talk m
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> I don't mind the merge of /bin, /usr/bin, /sbin and /usr/sbin;
> moreover, I want an even more radical change:
>
> /usr -> /System
> /home -> /Users
> /etc -> /Config
This would be a terrible idea, IMO. If you can rationalize this, wh
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> But it must be clear that all the rationale behind
> said division was invented after the fact,
I would say that the rationale was not “invented”, but rather adapted
to an evolving system.
> and (as Rob Landley said in
> his email [2]
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:40:12 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:35:58 -0500
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > All the arguments for keeping /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, and /usr/sbin
> > separated are really instances of the Chewbacca defense [1]. They
> > just don't make any sense.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> Also be ready for a merge of /bin and /sbin.. I'm sure most people can't
> even explain the difference between them.
Whoa hey what why? Who's pushing this forward?
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:35:58 -0500
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> All the arguments for keeping /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, and /usr/sbin
> separated are really instances of the Chewbacca defense [1]. They just
> don't make any sense.
All the arguments for changing things are just realising that the hor
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Hobbit wrote:
>> Why should we care about ancient filesystems that didn't supported
>> long paths, and therefore we got stuck with /usr since we didn't
>> wanted to waste another *single* character to make it /user?
>
> Because of it's original name: "UNIX System
On 11:26 Wed 18 Jul , William Hubbs wrote:
> Actually this is not correct (see my earlier post with the link to
> osnews.com).
Indeed. My bad.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:13:51PM +0400, Hobbit wrote:
> > Why should we care about ancient filesystems that didn't supported
> > long paths, and therefore we got stuck with /usr since we didn't
> > wanted to waste another *single* character to make it /user?
>
> Because of it's original name: "U
> Why should we care about ancient filesystems that didn't supported
> long paths, and therefore we got stuck with /usr since we didn't
> wanted to waste another *single* character to make it /user?
Because of it's original name: "UNIX System Resources" (usr).
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 07:12:09PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 07:19:48PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> >
> > Looking at @system and what it typically pulls into @world, the only
> > thing that might cause a problem is udev, although virtual/dev-manager
> > is in @system, ra
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 07/18/2012 04:10 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:54:16 -0400
>> Richard Yao wrote:
[snip]
>>> The difference is simple. You put stuff into /sbin when you do not
>>> want regular users to be able to select it via tab comp
On 07/18/2012 04:10 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:54:16 -0400
> Richard Yao wrote:
>
>> On 07/17/2012 07:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 18:41 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
If somebody really is pushing for an all-out /usr move by all means
speak up
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:20:13 -0400
Richard Yao wrote:
> Dear Everyone,
>
> An often cited benefit of the /usr merge is the ability to put
> everything but /etc on NFS and for that reason, we need to force an
> initramfs on people happily using /usr without it.
You forgot about /var. And possibl
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:54:16 -0400
Richard Yao wrote:
> On 07/17/2012 07:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 18:41 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> If somebody really is pushing for an all-out /usr move by all means
> >> speak up, but I think that basically what everybody is advo
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:20:13 -0400
Richard Yao wrote:
> An often cited benefit of the /usr merge is the ability to put
> everything but /etc on NFS and for that reason, we need to force an
> initramfs on people happily using /usr without it.
Are you going to send a single mail for every single b
On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 23:24 -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> GNOME is part of the GNU project, so we should be safe unless they
> decide against portability. OpenSuSe and Mageia are other distributions,
> so they are not upstream for us.
With my GNOME hat on:
GNOME does not take any marching orders fr
On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 23:54 -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 07/17/2012 07:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 18:41 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> If somebody really is pushing for an all-out /usr move by all means
> >> speak up, but I think that basically what everybody is advoca
On 07/17/2012 07:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 18:41 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> If somebody really is pushing for an all-out /usr move by all means
>> speak up, but I think that basically what everybody is advocating is
>> trying to follow upstream for individual packages.
On 07/17/2012 09:28 PM, Jeff Horelick wrote:
> On 17 July 2012 21:17, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 07/17/2012 08:46 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> If we don't do anything, then lots of stuff moves to /usr. I think
>>> that is what you're missing. The /usr move basically starts happening
>>> on its own
On 17 July 2012 21:17, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 07/17/2012 08:46 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> If we don't do anything, then lots of stuff moves to /usr. I think
>> that is what you're missing. The /usr move basically starts happening
>> on its own automatically if we DON'T do much. This is because
On 07/17/2012 08:46 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> If we don't do anything, then lots of stuff moves to /usr. I think
> that is what you're missing. The /usr move basically starts happening
> on its own automatically if we DON'T do much. This is because
> upstream is the one pushing it.
Which upstre
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:37:03PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> On 2012-07-17, at 7:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
>
> > I'm sure most people can't
> > even explain the difference between them.
> >
>
> /sbin is for bins that only root should be able to run. easy. :)
Not quite, check out t
On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 20:37 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 2012-07-17, at 7:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
>
> > I'm sure most people can't
> > even explain the difference between them.
> >
>
> /sbin is for bins that only root should be able to run. easy. :)
Or you can try this experiment
On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 20:37 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 2012-07-17, at 7:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
>
> > I'm sure most people can't
> > even explain the difference between them.
> >
>
> /sbin is for bins that only root should be able to run. easy. :)
Except when it isn't the case, f
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> I have yet to see any convincing reason to do this other than "RedHat is
> doing it". This change will not make Gentoo a better distribution and it
> is simply not worth the pain. Some people appear to think that this is
> an urgent issue and I
On 07/17/2012 08:12 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
Lastly, don't tell me to read systemd's case for why we should break
people's systems. I have read it and I find it flawed. There is
absolutely no need for us to make this change.
>>>
>>> Without elaboration on why you find their case fl
On 2012-07-17, at 7:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> I'm sure most people can't
> even explain the difference between them.
>
/sbin is for bins that only root should be able to run. easy. :)
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 07:19:48PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 07/17/2012 07:02 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > This is basically not relevant since we do not support HURD.
>
> It is relevant because it guarantees that the GNU stuff in @system will
> continue working. That allows us to narrow our
William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 06:13:06PM -0500, Dale wrote:
>> William Hubbs wrote:
>>>
>>> This is not quite correct. The initramfs is required because of [1].
>>>
>>>
>>> William
>>>
>> Where is [1]?
> [1] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
>
>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 06:13:06PM -0500, Dale wrote:
>
> William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> > This is not quite correct. The initramfs is required because of [1].
> >
> >
> > William
> >
>
> Where is [1]?
[1] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
We have a way around t
On 07/17/2012 07:02 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:20:13PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>> An often cited benefit of the /usr merge is the ability to put
>> everything but /etc on NFS and for that reason, we need to force an
>> initramfs on people happily using /usr without it.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 06:41:26PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> In any case, it sounds like for now some devs are continuing to adjust
> ebuilds to keep a separate /usr working as well as possible, though it
> apparently breaks in some edge cases right now without an initramfs,
> as you've already
William Hubbs wrote:
>
> This is not quite correct. The initramfs is required because of [1].
>
>
> William
>
Where is [1]?
Dale
:-) :-)
--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how
you interpreted my words!
On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 18:41 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> If somebody really is pushing for an all-out /usr move by all means
> speak up, but I think that basically what everybody is advocating is
> trying to follow upstream for individual packages.
As I've been saying for a while, doing a full me
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:20:13PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> An often cited benefit of the /usr merge is the ability to put
> everything but /etc on NFS and for that reason, we need to force an
> initramfs on people happily using /usr without it.
This is not quite correct. The initramfs is req
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> I have also been told that the /usr merge is necessary because upstream
> will force it on us. Interestingly, most of @system on Gentoo Linux is
> GNU software, which would need to stop supporting things in / in order
> for that to happen.
I d
72 matches
Mail list logo
