| 1 |
On 12/17/2012 06:23 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 01:31:59PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Olav Vitters <olav@×××××××.nl> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>>> As I said in an earlier email, Lennart Poettering claims that it does |
| 8 |
>>>>> not work. We are discussing some of the things necessary to make it |
| 9 |
>>>> work. |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> Just to repeat: |
| 12 |
>>>> In this thread it was claimed that a separate /usr is not supported by |
| 13 |
>>>> systemd/udev. |
| 14 |
>>>> |
| 15 |
>>>> A case which works with latest systemd on various distributions. I |
| 16 |
>>>> checked with upstream (not Lennart), and they confirmed it works. I can |
| 17 |
>>>> wait for Lennart to say the same, but really not needed. |
| 18 |
>>>> |
| 19 |
>>>> I assume this will again turn into a "but I meant something else". |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>>> Olav. |
| 22 |
>>> |
| 23 |
>>> Lennart has stated that he considers a seperate /usr without init* broken. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> Yes, as do I, and so do a lot of other developers. |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>> But that is a system configuration issue, not a systemd issue, please |
| 28 |
>> don't confuse the two. |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>>> This has worked correctly in the past. |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> Define "past" please. |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
>> Note, it's still broken, I have yet to see any upstream fixes to resolve |
| 35 |
>> all of the issues that are involved here with "fixing" this up. |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>> Yes, as always, for some subset of users, you can be lucky and it will |
| 38 |
>> work for them, but those systems are getting rarer and rarer these days, |
| 39 |
>> as the rest of upstream (not systemd here) are moving on and not doing |
| 40 |
>> anything to change their behavior for this topic. |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
>>> The direction udev development is going, according to Lennart, is to |
| 43 |
>>> make that impossible and he refuses to fix this regression. |
| 44 |
>> |
| 45 |
>> Again, this has NOTHING to do with udev or systemd, as has been pointed |
| 46 |
>> out numerous times. I understand your _wish_ that it would have |
| 47 |
>> something to do with it, but that will not change the facts, sorry. |
| 48 |
>> |
| 49 |
>>> I am really happy with this project and intend on testing it once |
| 50 |
>>> requests for this appear in the eudev mailing list. |
| 51 |
>> |
| 52 |
>> Good luck, the root problems still remain, and nothing that eudev ever |
| 53 |
>> does can resolve that, sorry. |
| 54 |
>> |
| 55 |
>> Can this topic finally be put to rest please? There is a whole web page |
| 56 |
>> devoted to this topic, why do people blindly ignore it? |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> This is a very good question. |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
>> Again, a separate /usr without an initrd has NOTHING to do with systemd |
| 61 |
>> or udev, with the minor exception that Gentoo's packaging of those |
| 62 |
>> programs _might_ have an issue, but that is Gentoo's issue, NOT |
| 63 |
>> upstream's issue. |
| 64 |
>> |
| 65 |
>> If anyone involved with eudev, or is involved with the Gentoo Council |
| 66 |
>> thinks that the previous paragraph is incorrect, they are flat out |
| 67 |
>> wrong. |
| 68 |
> |
| 69 |
> This all started with the April 2012 council meeting when it was pushed |
| 70 |
> through that separate /usr without an initramfs is a supported |
| 71 |
> configuration, so yes, the previous council started this issue. |
| 72 |
> |
| 73 |
> Also, yes, eudev believes they will be able to fix it. |
| 74 |
> |
| 75 |
> I am another one who has been pointing out how this is wrong multiple |
| 76 |
> times but my statements about it are falling on deaf ears. |
| 77 |
> |
| 78 |
> William |
| 79 |
> |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
I have also explained how we can fix this multiple times and I can say |
| 82 |
that my explanations have been ignored. The eudev project's solution to |
| 83 |
this can be summarized in the few sentences that I said in a response to |
| 84 |
gregkh (after you wrote your email): |
| 85 |
|
| 86 |
>I reject |
| 87 |
>the notion that there be a single rules directory. That opens the door |
| 88 |
>to having a second directory on /usr that enforce the requirement that |
| 89 |
>rules that depend on /usr execute after /usr is mounted. |
| 90 |
|
| 91 |
The only argument that has been made against it involves libraries that |
| 92 |
cross the /usr boundary. I consider such situations to be avoidable. |
| 93 |
There has been no other argument made against this approach and I am |
| 94 |
quite confident that it is sound. Furthermore, it satisfies the request |
| 95 |
of various users to support a separate /usr mount without an initramfs. |
| 96 |
Satisfying that seems to me to be a worthwhile goal and it is one that I |
| 97 |
and others believe that we can do. |
Archives