Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

On 30/09/2013 08:24, pk wrote: > So what you're saying is that everything in /usr is system-critical? I > have gimp installed in /usr... I don't see a need to start gimp at boot > time. Maybe we should classify frozen-bubble as system-critical as well > (it's also in /usr)? > > Seriously, boot-cri

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim

On 2013-09-30 00:04, Alan McKinnon wrote: > It's the general idea that you can leave /usr unmounted until some > random arb time later in the startup sequence and just expect things to > work out fine that is broken. > > It just happened to work OK for years because nothing happened to use > the

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

On 2013-09-30 04:05, Mark David Dumlao wrote: > It's true that it's nice to have a semblance of order where different parts > go. > But "all libraries and binaries in /usr" is also a semblance of order. You > don't > separate stuff for the sake of separating stuff. You separate them because you

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: > > On Sep 30, 2013 9:31 AM, "Daniel Campbell" wrote: >> > > --- le snip --- > >> If the proposed solution is all binaries and libraries in the same >> root/prefix directory, then why call it /usr? > > My question exactly. > > Why install to /

[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:39:35 -0500 Dale wrote: > I think I'll update that Kubuntu disk right quick while I am thinking > about it. Fall back plan just in case. ;-) Make sure you notify the Kubuntu mailing list of your contingency plans in case Kubuntu's init thingy gives you trouble. ;)

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 01:00:06AM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote >>> > * Separate /usr worked fine for AGES, until... Do you see a pattern >>> > developing here? >>> > >>

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 01:00:06AM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote >> > * Separate /usr worked fine for AGES, until... Do you see a pattern >> > developing here? >> > >> seperate /usr has stopped working fine AGES AGO. Just some setups

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 01:00:06AM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote > Am 30.09.2013 00:06, schrieb Walter Dnes: > > > * Everybody's single-NIC machine came up with eth0 for AGES, until Kay > > Seivers broke udev. And calling the new setup "predictable" is > > George Orwell 1984 doubles

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

On Sep 30, 2013 9:31 AM, "Daniel Campbell" wrote: > --- le snip --- > If the proposed solution is all binaries and libraries in the same > root/prefix directory, then why call it /usr? My question exactly. Why install to /usr at all, leaving /bin and /sbin a practically empty directory contain

Re: [gentoo-user] some of the stuff in /usr that's become a problem

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/29/2013 10:13 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 09:21:01PM -0500, Daniel Campbell wrote: >>> /usr/lib/udev. /usr/lib/systemd. >>> >>> were both placed in /usr despite objections from a number of >>> folks. >>> >>> So cl

Re: [gentoo-user] some of the stuff in /usr that's become a problem

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 09:21:01PM -0500, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > /usr/lib/udev. > > /usr/lib/systemd. > > > > were both placed in /usr despite objections from a number of folks. > > > > So claims that udev and systemd are not responsible are not true. Udev is installed in / in gentoo

[gentoo-user] Re: some of the stuff in /usr that's become a problem

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 22:03:11 -0400 Greg Woodbury wrote: > One of the most obvious things that broke booting with a > seperate /usr is not GNOMEs fault, but GRUB 2's fault. > > the move of /bin to /usr/bin (for things like cp,mv,ln,ls) came after > the breakage of /usr, but is symptomatic of som

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 09/29/2013 09:05 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >>> Anyway, I'm not in favor of FHS _per se_, but it sounds pretty >>> reasonable to have some semblance of order among where diff

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

On 09/29/2013 09:25 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> On 09/29/2013 08:51 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: It's fairly obvious (to me, anyway) that anything mounting a filesystem

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 09/29/2013 08:51 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >>> It's fairly obvious (to me, anyway) that anything mounting a filesystem >>> and making it available is system-critical. I run

[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:25:05 +0100 Mick wrote: > On Sunday 29 Sep 2013 06:29:37 Walter Dnes wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 06:09:40PM -0500, Dale wrote > > > > > Most likely, I'll install Kubuntu to start. Then I may roam > > > around and test other distros until I find one I like. Thing

Re: [gentoo-user] some of the stuff in /usr that's become a problem

On 09/29/2013 09:03 PM, Greg Woodbury wrote: > One of the most obvious things that broke booting with a seperate /usr > is not GNOMEs fault, but GRUB 2's fault. > > the move of /bin to /usr/bin (for things like cp,mv,ln,ls) came after > the breakage of /usr, but is symptomatic of some distros cava

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

On 09/29/2013 09:05 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> Anyway, I'm not in favor of FHS _per se_, but it sounds pretty >> reasonable to have some semblance of order among where different parts >> of a system go. Shoving everything into /usr and

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > Anyway, I'm not in favor of FHS _per se_, but it sounds pretty > reasonable to have some semblance of order among where different parts > of a system go. Shoving everything into /usr and symlinking everything > else seems like a stop-gap or

[gentoo-user] some of the stuff in /usr that's become a problem

One of the most obvious things that broke booting with a seperate /usr is not GNOMEs fault, but GRUB 2's fault. the move of /bin to /usr/bin (for things like cp,mv,ln,ls) came after the breakage of /usr, but is symptomatic of some distros cavalier attitudes to the problem. /usr/lib/udev.

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

On 09/29/2013 08:51 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> It's fairly obvious (to me, anyway) that anything mounting a filesystem >> and making it available is system-critical. I run samba and don't need >> it for boot, but like you said, someone

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > It's fairly obvious (to me, anyway) that anything mounting a filesystem > and making it available is system-critical. I run samba and don't need > it for boot, but like you said, someone may need that. I wouldn't see a > problem with smbmou

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

On 09/29/2013 08:40 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> I'm not affected by anything regarding the /usr switch, but I'd like >> to have a good talk with the first person who decided a >> system-critical binary belonged in /usr instead of /bin o

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > I'm not affected by anything regarding the /usr switch, but I'd like > to have a good talk with the first person who decided a > system-critical binary belonged in /usr instead of /bin or /sbin. > They've created a mess for every distro and

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

On 09/29/2013 08:17 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> I'm not affected by anything regarding the /usr switch, but I'd like >> to have a good talk with the first person who decided a >> system-critical binary belonged in /usr instead of /bin o

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > I'm not affected by anything regarding the /usr switch, but I'd like > to have a good talk with the first person who decided a > system-critical binary belonged in /usr instead of /bin or /sbin. > They've created a mess for every distro and

Re: [gentoo-user] systemd installation location

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/29/2013 02:52 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I can clarify one part of the systemd issue, because I have been > involved in this part of the issue for months. Again, I am not > trying to start a dispute here, just providing a clarificatio

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 09/29/2013 01:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:55:49PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: >> On 2013-09-28 6:36 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: >>> So this brings us back to the essential technical problem that still >>> needs to be solved on your machines: >>> >>> /usr needs to be availa

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 19:52:30 -0400, Greg Woodbury wrote: > But I don't *want* to run a genkernel for reasons of my own. > > I do not *want* to have to have an init* pseudo-filesystem for reasons > of my own. > > I may want to have a separate /usr for rrerasons of my own. You can have whatever

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 18:31:37 -0500, Daniel Campbell wrote: > Curious; how is merging two filesystems done? I don't have a separate > /usr and am completely unaffected by this change, but it's somewhat > interesting to me. /usr stores some pretty important data on it, and I > imagine you'd need to

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

But I don't *want* to run a genkernel for reasons of my own. I do not *want* to have to have an init* pseudo-filesystem for reasons of my own. I may want to have a separate /usr for rrerasons of my own. Distros that *force* me to do things I don't want to do, for whatever reasons they claim,

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 09/28/2013 12:31 PM, Dale wrote: > William Hubbs wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 07:32:20PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:57:06PM -0500, Dale wrote: Bruce Hill wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:33:02PM -0500, Dale wrote: >> I'm hoping that since I use e

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 16:35:21 -0500, Dale wrote: > >> So my experience doesn't matter any then? My /usr does vary and >> sometimes varies quite a bit. That is why I had to resize the thing. >> Saying that I didn't make it large enough to begin with isn't the >> point. When

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/28/2013 09:04 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 28/09/2013 13:32, Tanstaafl wrote: >> On 2013-09-27 7:10 PM, Alan McKinnon >> wrote: >>> No really,*why exactly*? >> >> Because that was the RECOMMENDED WAY IN THE GENTOO HANDBOOK when >> I first set

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-09-29 5:35 PM, Dale wrote: >> Tanstaafl wrote: >>> Ok, but... everything I've read and personal experience over the years >>> shows that space required for /usr should not change much, especially >>> constantly grow over time (like requirements for /home can and will)- >

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 18:06:15 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > * Loading firmware into the kernel worked fine for AGES, until Kay > Seivers broke udev... https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303 > > * Everybody's single-NIC machine came up with eth0 for AGES, until Kay > Seivers broke udev. And

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 16:35:21 -0500, Dale wrote: > So my experience doesn't matter any then? My /usr does vary and > sometimes varies quite a bit. That is why I had to resize the thing. > Saying that I didn't make it large enough to begin with isn't the > point. When people use LVM, the reason

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 16:48:22 -0500, Dale wrote: > > They are not the same. Your stating that they are the same to you is > > effectively saying "I know what I believe, don't bother me with the > > real facts". > > They are the same to me as yet one more point of failure that I DO NOT > want. I h

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

Am 30.09.2013 00:53, schrieb Tanstaafl: > On 2013-09-29 5:15 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> Those numbers are not likely to change much with time, with one >> exception: >> >> /usr/src >> >> That can get real big real quick if you don't clean up kernel sources >> often. Ideally, you'd make that a sui

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

Mark David Dumlao wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Dale wrote: >> Mark David Dumlao wrote: >>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Dale wrote: One thing that you seem to be missing here. Before Gentoo, I used Mandrake. It had a init thingy. It caused me much grief and is o

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 23:33:55 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > And it also prevents him from using The One True Filesystem That Will > Rule Them All and In the Darkness Bind Them: > > ZFS Now if that was included in the kernel, none of this thread would matter :) -- Neil Bothwick Life's a cache,

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

Am 29.09.2013 19:58, schrieb Tanstaafl: > On 2013-09-28 4:17 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> I suppose that what I am about to say isn't really relevant, but it is unfortunate over the past year that people blamed udev specifically

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

Am 30.09.2013 00:06, schrieb Walter Dnes: > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 06:10:46PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote > >> From REDHATs or SuSEs perspective seperate /usr is not a problem. >> Putting lvm/bluetooth/mdraid/whateverthefuckyoumightneed there was >> and is not a problem too. Thanks to initrd

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 2013-09-29 5:35 PM, Dale wrote: Tanstaafl wrote: Ok, but... everything I've read and personal experience over the years shows that space required for /usr should not change much, especially constantly grow over time (like requirements for /home can and will)- it may fluctuate (increase, decr

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 2013-09-29 5:15 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: Those numbers are not likely to change much with time, with one exception: /usr/src That can get real big real quick if you don't clean up kernel sources often. Ideally, you'd make that a suitably sized LV and mount it seperately. Yeah, I always ke

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim

Am 29.09.2013 18:41, schrieb Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike): > El 29/09/13 18:03, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió: >> Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury: >>> On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >>> things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd,

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Dale wrote: > Mark David Dumlao wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Dale wrote: >>> One thing that you seem to be missing here. Before Gentoo, I used Mandrake. >>> It had a init thingy. It caused me much grief and is one reason I left >>> Mandrake. I als

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim

On 29/09/2013 23:41, Dale wrote: > Alan McKinnon wrote: >> On 29/09/2013 18:33, Dale wrote: that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news. > And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are > not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 06:10:46PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote > From REDHATs or SuSEs perspective seperate /usr is not a problem. > Putting lvm/bluetooth/mdraid/whateverthefuckyoumightneed there was > and is not a problem too. Thanks to initrds&co. And if I wanted to run bleeping Redhat

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

Mark David Dumlao wrote: > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Dale wrote: >> One thing that you seem to be missing here. Before Gentoo, I used Mandrake. >> It had a init thingy. It caused me much grief and is one reason I left >> Mandrake. I also didn't like the upgrade process either but one rea

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 18:09:40 -0500, Dale wrote: > >>> Read the kernel docs on initramfs, you'll then understand that this is >>> not true. >> Point is, they are the same to me. Both stand between grub and the >> kernel and add yet one more point of failure. I'm not going to

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim

Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 29/09/2013 18:33, Dale wrote: >>> that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news. And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes. >> If not, then what was it

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 29/09/2013 23:32, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:23:20 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > >> Here's my version of "LVM without the overhead of LVM" to allow >> maximum flexibity, without the overhead of LVM. > > This gives you one of the advantages of LVM, the ability to use space on

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-09-29 2:25 PM, Dale wrote: >> Tanstaafl wrote: >>> The way I see it, if you cannot provide a rational answer to that >>> question, then there is no reason for you to use this as a reason to >>> abandon gentoo, only a reason to merge /usr into /... > >> Simple, I have ne

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:23:20 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > Here's my version of "LVM without the overhead of LVM" to allow > maximum flexibity, without the overhead of LVM. This gives you one of the advantages of LVM, the ability to use space on a single drive as your needs change. It doesn't all

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 02:45:05PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote > On 2013-09-29 2:25 PM, Dale wrote: > > Tanstaafl wrote: > >> The way I see it, if you cannot provide a rational answer to that > >> question, then there is no reason for you to use this as a reason to > >> abandon gentoo, only a reason t

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 29/09/2013 22:51, Tanstaafl wrote: > Weird - I thought I replied to this a while ago (I know I started one), > but it disappeared, and is not in my Sent folder and it never made it to > the list... > > On 2013-09-29 2:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> I am the OpenRC author/maintainer and a membe

Re: [gentoo-user] Managing multiple systems with identical hardware

On 29/09/2013 20:31, Grant wrote: [snip] >> There's one thing that we haven't touched on, and that's the hardware. >> Are they all identical hardware items, or at least compatible? Kernel >> builds and hardware-sensitive apps like mplayer are the top reasons >> you'd want to centralize things, bu

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

Weird - I thought I replied to this a while ago (I know I started one), but it disappeared, and is not in my Sent folder and it never made it to the list... On 2013-09-29 2:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote: I am the OpenRC author/maintainer and a member of base-system. I can tell you that we are no

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple systems with identical hardware

On 29/09/2013 20:36, Grant wrote: >>> I'm slowly coming to conclsuion that you are trying to solve a problem >>> with Gentoo that binary distros already solved a very long time ago. You >>> are forcing yourself to become the sole maintainer of GrantOS and do all >>> the heavy lifting of packaging.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 29/09/2013 20:55, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:55:49PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: >> On 2013-09-28 6:36 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: >>> So this brings us back to the essential technical problem that still >>> needs to be solved on your machines: >>> >>> /usr needs to be available

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 2013-09-29 4:09 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 29/09/2013 19:59, Tanstaafl wrote: I've been told that this shouldn't be a big deal... while I am a (barely) passable linux sys admin Allow me to forward an opinion. The above is not true, not even close. Don't knock yourself, you don't deserve

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 29/09/2013 19:55, Tanstaafl wrote: [snip] > I have *never* merged a critical filesystem on a critical server like > this before. > >> Please see the news item for what it actually is, not something else. > > I see it as an ultimatum that I *must* change a server that has been > running flawl

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 29/09/2013 17:41, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Sep 29, 2013 3:33 AM, "Alan McKinnon" > wrote: [snip] >> Exherbo might be worth a look too[1]. >> >> It's a sort-of Gentoo fork using the portage tree and PMS; plus Ciaran >> strikes me as the kind of guy who *wo

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Dale wrote: > One thing that you seem to be missing here. Before Gentoo, I used Mandrake. > It had a init thingy. It caused me much grief and is one reason I left > Mandrake. I also didn't like the upgrade process either but one reason I > chose Gentoo is no ini

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 29/09/2013 19:59, Tanstaafl wrote: > I've been told that this shouldn't be a big deal... while I am a > (barely) passable linux sys admin Allow me to forward an opinion. The above is not true, not even close. Don't knock yourself, you don't deserve it :-) In my day job I get to meet many peop

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 29/09/2013 19:43, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-09-28 6:46 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: >> Except you can never break Gentoo with a kernel update because, unlike >> some other distros, installing a new kernel does not uninstall the >> previous one. No matter how badly wrng a kernel update goes, you ca

Re: [gentoo-user] gcc-bin for stupid user

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 04:44:29PM +0200, Alain Didierjean wrote: > I'm in trouble for having stupidly unmerged gcc and gcc-config ! > What's the easiest way, if any, to grab and install a binary gcc allowing me > to emerge... gcc ! > We're talking about amd64. I don't know if you solved your iss

[gentoo-user] systemd installation location

All, I can clarify one part of the systemd issue, because I have been involved in this part of the issue for months. Again, I am not trying to start a dispute here, just providing a clarification. The choice to install all of the systemd binaries in /usr is not an upstream choice. It was a choic

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim

On 29/09/2013 18:33, Dale wrote: >> that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news. >> > And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are >> > not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes. > If not, then what was it? You seem to know what

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 2:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:21:30PM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Tanstaafl > >> wrote: > >> > On 2013-09-28 4:17 PM, Neil Bothwic

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 2:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:21:30PM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Tanstaafl >> wrote: >> > On 2013-09-28 4:17 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +, Alan Mackenzie w

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 29/09/2013 13:58, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > Am 29.09.2013 13:03, schrieb Greg Woodbury: >> On 09/29/2013 06:55 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >> >>> why do you bring up udev and systemd AT ALL? >>> >>> They are not the problem or the reason why seperate /usr is prone to >>> break. >>> >> Ex

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 29/09/2013 12:55, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > Am 29.09.2013 10:28, schrieb Alan McKinnon: >> On 29/09/2013 10:25, Mick wrote: >>> On Sunday 29 Sep 2013 06:29:37 Walter Dnes wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 06:09:40PM -0500, Dale wrote > Most likely, I'll install Kubuntu to start.

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:21:30PM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Tanstaafl wrote: > > On 2013-09-28 4:17 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >> > I suppose that what I am about to say isn't rea

Re: [gentoo-user] Managing multiple systems with identical hardware

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:31:17 -0700, Grant wrote: > > Personally, I wouldn't do the building and pushing on my own laptop, > > that turns me inot the central server and updates only happen when I'm > > in the office. I'd use a central build host and my laptop is just > > another client. Not all tha

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:55:49PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-09-28 6:36 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > So this brings us back to the essential technical problem that still > > needs to be solved on your machines: > > > > /usr needs to be available (and not only for BT keyboards) at the > > e

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:43:10 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: > > Except you can never break Gentoo with a kernel update because, unlike > > some other distros, installing a new kernel does not uninstall the > > previous one. No matter how badly wrng a kernel update goes, you can > > always hit reset then

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 07:03:30 -0400, Greg Woodbury wrote: > Except that systemd *is* why a seperate /usr is broken now. If that were true, the news item that started this thread would never have been published. Gentoo uses openrc by default, so supporting separate /usr on non-systemd systems (the

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:25:56PM -0500, Dale wrote: > Tanstaafl wrote: > > > > The way I see it, if y ou cannot provide a rational answer to that > > question, then there is no reason for you to use this as a reason to > > abandon gentoo, only a reason to merge /usr into /... > > > > > > Simple

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 2013-09-29 2:25 PM, Dale wrote: Tanstaafl wrote: The way I see it, if you cannot provide a rational answer to that question, then there is no reason for you to use this as a reason to abandon gentoo, only a reason to merge /usr into /... Simple, I have never had to resize / or /boot befo

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 18:09:40 -0500, Dale wrote: > > Read the kernel docs on initramfs, you'll then understand that this is > > not true. > > Point is, they are the same to me. Both stand between grub and the > kernel and add yet one more point of failure. I'm not going to nitpck > on the differ

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple systems with identical hardware

>> I'm slowly coming to conclsuion that you are trying to solve a problem >> with Gentoo that binary distros already solved a very long time ago. You >> are forcing yourself to become the sole maintainer of GrantOS and do all >> the heavy lifting of packaging. But, Mint and friends already did all

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:53:26 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: > Precisely. And, it is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), that > simply keeping your old kernel/initramfs around is NOT a guarantee (it > might work - and it might NOT) of being able to fallback to a known > working config until you

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 2013-09-29 2:21 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Tanstaafl wrote: Where are the links/pointers to the INTERNAL discussions of this decision? I seriously want to know. If gentoo devs are not willing to provide a 'paper trail' for how this decision was arrived

Re: [gentoo-user] Managing multiple systems with identical hardware

I realized I only need two types of systems in my life. One hosted server and bunch of identical laptops. My laptop, my wife's laptop, our HTPC, routers, and office workstations could all be on identical hardware, and what better choice than a laptop? Extremely space-eff

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 12:07:44 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Hello, Neil. > > In what way is it patronising? > > It talks down to people. It insinuates that the readers don't have the > wherewithal to appreciate that they have been deliberately hurt by > _somebody_ rather than something "just hap

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 2013-09-29 2:02 PM, Bruce Hill wrote: You show the smallness of your vocabulary by using profanity. Rotflmao! Sometimes profanity actually serves a purpose. And you show the shallowness of your *nix knowledge by replying with such nonesense. Nonsense? Really? You're saying it is unreas

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-09-29 11:24 AM, Dale wrote: >> Tanstaafl wrote: >>> Dale - I'm honestly curious, what is your reason, philisophical or >>> technical, for wanting a separate /usr? >>> >>> Everything I've read says there is no good reason for it today. >>> Separate /home, /tmp, /var, yes,

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-09-28 4:17 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: >> >> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> I suppose that what I am about to say isn't really relevant, but it is unfortunate over the past year that people blamed ud

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:24:25PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: > > > > The news item *IS* the warning. > > Oh for *Tanstaafl's* sake... *Tanstaafl*. > > If an ebuild maintainer changes something that will BREAK BOOTING on > systems that violate the 'no separate /usr without an initramfs' rule, > wh

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 2013-09-28 12:01 PM, William Hubbs wrote: There is no reason to rebuild your server; we aren't telling you you have to merge /usr into /. The only thing we are saying is that you will need to use an initramfs if you are going to keep them separate. Which, if you even bothered to read the wo

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 2013-09-28 4:17 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: I suppose that what I am about to say isn't really relevant, but it is unfortunate over the past year that people blamed udev specifically for this. It is true that it does things that don't w

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 2013-09-28 6:36 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: So this brings us back to the essential technical problem that still needs to be solved on your machines: /usr needs to be available (and not only for BT keyboards) at the earliest possible opportunity - this is a technical constraint. To guarantee th

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 2013-09-28 10:04 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 28/09/2013 13:32, Tanstaafl wrote: This, combined with an intense (also maybe irrational) desire to avoid like the plague using an initramfs, is why this decision to FORCE me into a position of possibly having to break my system (either by a filed

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 2013-09-29 8:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Please be aware the change I was talking about was the decision to break separate /usr, not the Gentoo devs' reaction to this breakage. Why did we only become aware of the decision to break separate /usr after it was too late to do anything about it?

[gentoo-user] Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim

On 2013-09-29 11:12 AM, Greg Woodbury wrote: It is truly layable at the feet of the GNOME folks, the breakage of the root and usr filesystem separability is all derived from the GNOME camp. Thanks for the excellent summary... and this explains a lot... It also doesn't surpise me, given my ext

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 2013-09-28 6:46 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: Except you can never break Gentoo with a kernel update because, unlike some other distros, installing a new kernel does not uninstall the previous one. No matter how badly wrng a kernel update goes, you can always hit reset then select the old one from

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-09-29 10:57 AM, Bruce Hill wrote: >> >> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:20:49AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: >>> >>> On 2013-09-28 8:30 AM, Bruce Hill >>> wrote: This does not mean that on November 1 your system will not be able to >>>

Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

On 2013-09-29 11:24 AM, Dale wrote: Tanstaafl wrote: Dale - I'm honestly curious, what is your reason, philisophical or technical, for wanting a separate /usr? Everything I've read says there is no good reason for it today. Separate /home, /tmp, /var, yes, good reasons for t hose... but not /u

  1   2   >