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
64 matches
Mail list logo
