| 1 |
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:05:27PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 14/12/12 01:28 PM, Greg KH wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Handling separate /usr support ============================== |
| 5 |
> >> After the discussion on [1] during the previous meeting, a delay |
| 6 |
> >> of one month due to a new fork of udev was requested. We need an |
| 7 |
> >> update on what's happened. |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> Chainsaw reported udev and eudev have moved on, and for both it |
| 10 |
> >> is now possible to have a separate /usr. The follow-up |
| 11 |
> >> discussion related to the /usr-merge is necessary. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > udev was never the problem of having a separate /usr without an |
| 14 |
> > initrd. Have all of the other packages been properly fixed to |
| 15 |
> > resolve this issue correctly? |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Also, what's the plan for eudev going forward? |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Eudev's project announcement is coming soon, should answer your questions. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Ok, when is "soon"? I'm guessing that the result of the council meeting |
| 24 |
ment that things are progressing, right? If so, in what way? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> In terms of udev's dependencies, yes, the few dependencies that were |
| 27 |
> installing only to /usr (ie, kmod and xz-utils) have been switched to |
| 28 |
> install to /, and then fixed again due to issues with they way they |
| 29 |
> were done the first time so that they also work. I believe however |
| 30 |
> they are still ~arch keyworded. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I am not referring to udev's dependancies, that was never the real |
| 33 |
issue with a separate /usr/ partition as those could easily be fixed |
| 34 |
with a configuration option for the package. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> There may of course be other entirely independent packages needed at |
| 37 |
> boot time prior to localmount, I do not know that status of those. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
That's the big problem, those need to be fixed. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> Once eudev (the gentoo package) fully supports separate-/usr (which it |
| 42 |
> doesn't at this time as it uses the same init scripts as udev-196), we |
| 43 |
> will be sure to resolve them. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Again, udev itself was never an issue, it could work just fine with a |
| 46 |
separate /usr/ partition. Now perhaps our ebuild didn't build it in |
| 47 |
that matter, but that's a configuration/ebuild issue, not a upstream |
| 48 |
package issue. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> It should be noted that sys-fs/udev (the package) since .. 186 I |
| 51 |
> think? whichever version dropped support for the failed-rules queue |
| 52 |
> (and whichever package dropped the udev-postmount init script) does |
| 53 |
> not support booting with a separate /usr. This has more to do with |
| 54 |
> how the package installs than the upstream code itself, though; as |
| 55 |
> such (WilliamH please correct me if I'm wrong) the plan is still to |
| 56 |
> require an initramfs if using sys-fs/udev with a separate-/usr. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
If the plan is still to require an initramfs (hint, it's the only way it |
| 59 |
can work), then why was the eudev package forked and created? |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Please, I'm totally confused now, especially after reading the commits |
| 62 |
in the eudev repo, I see nothing that fixed any /usr/ problems, what am |
| 63 |
I missing? |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Oh, you also slowed the build time of the package down in eudev compared |
| 66 |
to udev, but I'm sure you realized that already, and did it for a good |
| 67 |
reason. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
confused, |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
greg k-h |
Archives