Re: [gentoo-user] Re: acct-group packages ??

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 09:59:06 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > I see, I got caught (again) by the favorite gentoo sleight of hand of > updating a package and not bumping its version. In my case, eudev. I've not checked lately, but policy was that if an ebuild change did not result in differences in t

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USE flag 'split-usr' is now global

On 2019-08-04 20:01, Dale wrote: It was discussed on -dev in at least a couple threads I think.  I sort Thanks for that good hint. I did browse through the archives. -- Sent with eQmail-1.10.3 beta - a fork of djb's famous qmail

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge --sync: problem refreshing keys

On domenica 21 luglio 2019 13:22:55 CEST Stefano Crocco wrote: > On domenica 21 luglio 2019 12:44:14 CEST Mick wrote: > > On Sunday, 21 July 2019 11:17:30 BST Stefano Crocco wrote: > > > On venerdì 19 luglio 2019 21:02:40 CEST Stefano Crocco wrote: > > > > On venerdì 19 luglio 2019 18:21:46 CEST Ia

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USE flag 'split-usr' is now global

On Monday, 5 August 2019 02:26:11 BST Grant Taylor wrote: > On 8/4/19 12:03 PM, Mick wrote: > > I don't know more about this, but it seems we are being dragged towards > > a systemd inspired future, whether the majority of the gentoo community > > of users want it or not. > > How is the /usr merge

Re: [gentoo-user] HACK: Boot without an initramfs / initrd while maintaining a separate /usr file system.

On Monday, 5 August 2019 02:36:31 BST Grant Taylor wrote: > On 8/4/19 7:26 PM, Grant Taylor wrote: > > I am also using a bit of a hack that I think could be (re)used to allow > > /usr being a separate file system without /requiring/ an initramfs / > > initrd. (I'll reply in another email with deta

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: acct-group packages ??

On 8/5/19 3:21 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 09:59:06 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > >> I see, I got caught (again) by the favorite gentoo sleight of hand of >> updating a package and not bumping its version. In my case, eudev. > > I've not checked lately, but policy was that if a

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USE flag 'split-usr' is now global

On 8/5/19 4:49 AM, Mick wrote: It is being /assertively/ promoted persistently by the same devs. Okay. Just because it's the same developers promoting both does not mean that any logic / evidence they might provide in support of /usr merge is inherently wrong. We should judge the merits of

Re: [gentoo-user] HACK: Boot without an initramfs / initrd while maintaining a separate /usr file system.

On 8/5/19 5:45 AM, Mick wrote: Interesting concept, thanks for sharing. You're welcome. Unless I misunderstand how this will work, it will create duplication of the fs for /bin and /sbin, which will both use extra space and require managing. Yes, it will create some duplication. Though I

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USE flag 'split-usr' is now global

On Monday, 5 August 2019 17:17:53 BST Grant Taylor wrote: > On 8/5/19 4:49 AM, Mick wrote: > Just because it's the same developers promoting both does not mean that > any logic / evidence they might provide in support of /usr merge is > inherently wrong. We should judge the merits of their logic

[gentoo-user] Re: HACK: Boot without an initramfs / initrd while maintaining a separate /usr file system.

On 2019-08-04 19:36, Grant Taylor wrote: > Create the bin and sbin directories inside of the /usr directory that > is the mount point so that they are on the underlying file system that > /usr is mounted over top of. Then copy the needed binaries to the > /usr/bin & /usr/sbin directories on the u

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: HACK: Boot without an initramfs / initrd while maintaining a separate /usr file system.

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 4:53 PM Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > Don't you have to go through some extra hoops (a flag to the mount > command or something) to mount over a non-empty directory? > > Not in my experience, I've done it many times (sometimes even on purpose :) ) -- Manuel A. McLure WW1FA

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: HACK: Boot without an initramfs / initrd while maintaining a separate /usr file system.

On 8/5/19 5:52 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote: Don't you have to go through some extra hoops (a flag to the mount command or something) to mount over a non-empty directory? Nope. I don't recall ever needing to do anything like that in Linux. I do know that other traditional Unixes are more picky abo

[gentoo-user] Re: USE flag 'split-usr' is now global

If I correctly remember the post by Lennart that spawned this entire debate, there were and are genuine technical reasons why a separate /usr filesystem doesn't really work anymore. Perhaps fixable _if_ all package developers (other than init) paid attention but that's not going to happen. Now of

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: HACK: Boot without an initramfs / initrd while maintaining a separate /usr file system.

On 2019.08.05 19:52, Ian Zimmerman wrote: On 2019-08-04 19:36, Grant Taylor wrote: Create the bin and sbin directories inside of the /usr directory that is the mount point so that they are on the underlying file system that /usr is mounted over top of. Then copy the needed binaries to the

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USE flag 'split-usr' is now global

On 8/5/19 5:34 PM, Mick wrote: I am not entertaining ad hominem attacks on whoever may have been involved in such decisions. Only the impacts of such decisions on gentoo in particular. :-) I probably used an incorrect figure of speech and caused confusion. We're only discussing the merge of

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: HACK: Boot without an initramfs / initrd while maintaining a separate /usr file system.

On 8/5/19 6:28 PM, Jack wrote: However, I keep wondering if an overlay file system might not be of some use here. Start with /bin, containing only what's necessary to boot before /usr is available. I wonder how much of what would need to be in the pre-/usr /bin directory can be provided by b

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: HACK: Boot without an initramfs / initrd while maintaining a separate /usr file system.

On 8/5/19 8:45 PM, Grant Taylor wrote: Even bigger hack. I wouldn't be me if I didn't lob these two words out there: mount namespaces /me will see himself out now. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

[gentoo-user] No profile 17.1 for 32-bit (x86) installs?

I just updated Gentoo on my old backup machine, an 11-year-old Dell Inspiron 530 desktop, and there's no mention of profile 17.1 in either "eselect profile list" or "eselect news list". I'm not looking for extra hassle, but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything obvious. -- Walter Dnes

Re: [gentoo-user] No profile 17.1 for 32-bit (x86) installs?

Walter Dnes wrote: I just updated Gentoo on my old backup machine, an 11-year-old Dell Inspiron 530 desktop, and there's no mention of profile 17.1 in either "eselect profile list" or "eselect news list". I'm not looking for extra hassle, but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything obvio