Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Joost Roeleveld <joost@...>
Subject: Re: udev and /usr
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:03:53 +0200
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/v86d is used for uvesafb support.
> It installs /usr/share/v86d/initramfs and when you configure your
> kernel, you set CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE="/usr/share/v86d/initramfs" in
> order to have in included in your kernel image.

Will this be set somewhere globally to the initramfs automatically?
And doesn't this mean that a new kernel will need to be build just to satisfy 

I'm trying to think of how best to avoid users who are not aware to get caught 
with non-booting systems.

Wouldn't automatic inclusion into grub.conf be a better approach? Not sure if 
grub.conf can handle a "global" setting for initramfs.

> > Also, how will
> > we be able to deal with situations where this script fails?
> It should drop you to a minimal shell.

But, with udev then failing, will there be the /dev-entries to mount the 
different partitions to fix the environment?

> > If Gentoo does decide to follow the initramfs-route, why not simply
> > implement /etc/init.d/localmount in the initramfs?
> I think that's pretty close to what we have planned, since the plan is
> to have the initramfs mount configuration stored on the root filesystem.

But still require a seperate configuration file for this?

> > Why require users to figure out which
> > filesystems are needed for udev?
> Simply mount all filesystems containing files managed by the package
> manager with the initramfs. Anything else would expose you to the
> possibility of unsatisfied dependencies.

On my desktop, that would mean the following list:

> > Also, I was actually hoping for a reply to the rest of my email as well,
> > especially the idea for splitting udev into 2 seperate processes.
> In essence, what your doing here is playing a game of "let's see how
> long we can delay the mounting of essential filesystems". If you play
> this game, then again, you expose yourself to the possibility of
> unsatisfied dependencies. Therefore, the only foolproof approach is to
> mount all essential filesystems as soon as possible (via initramfs).

True, but I don't have any scripts configured for udev on my desktop.
My server has some scripts related to Xen, and those are all under 

In this case, would it still be necessary to use an initramfs?

> > If someone can explain to me why my idea won't work, please let me know.
> If your goal is to expose yourself to the possibility of unsatisfied
> dependencies, they your idea will achieve it.

No, my goal is to come up with a different solution to this problem which, on 
my system and possibly also on a lot of other systems, doesn't actually exist.


Re: udev and /usr
-- Zac Medico
Re: udev and /usr
-- Rich Freeman
Re: udev and /usr
-- Michał Górny
udev and /usr
-- Joost Roeleveld
Re: udev and /usr
-- Joost Roeleveld
Re: udev and /usr
-- Zac Medico
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: udev and /usr
Next by thread:
Re: udev and /usr
Previous by date:
Re: x32 fun pants
Next by date:
Re: x32 fun pants

Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.