1 |
Brian Harring posted on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 21:59:45 -0700 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Checking the boot levels, udev included, same thing- if ROOT=/ and |
4 |
> baselayout is there already you likely *could* look at the running |
5 |
> system to see what's needed/in use, and kick rc-update as needed for |
6 |
> spots where it *isn't*. |
7 |
|
8 |
Um... 32-bit chroots for amd64 comes to mind, tho that's just a single |
9 |
supported case of the general idea. Here, I've adapted the idea slightly |
10 |
by simply installing a complete system to the chroot, just never actually |
11 |
/running/ it from there, as a maintained system image that was initially |
12 |
transferred to USB, now updated thru rsync, for my netbook. |
13 |
|
14 |
Portage's ROOT is unchanged in these cases, but depending on how the |
15 |
detection of the running system is achieved, the script might attempt |
16 |
changes based on the components of the 64-bit HOST system, not the 32-bit |
17 |
chroot system image, or conversely, changes inappropriate for an image |
18 |
that never actually boots on its host system. That would *NOT* be a good |
19 |
thing! |
20 |
|
21 |
So any such detection would have to be based on far more than the setting |
22 |
for ROOT and existence of baselayout. |
23 |
|
24 |
Meanwhile, all this is a rather nice idea in theory, but with literally |
25 |
days left before pulling the trigger, now's rather late in the game to |
26 |
bring the suggestion. Development and proper testing of such a script |
27 |
would certainly take months, at least. This whole idea, suggested now, |
28 |
seems to me to be a rather advanced case of letting the perfect be the |
29 |
enemy of the far better but nobody claiming perfect. The time for such a |
30 |
suggestion would have been several months ago when the final push toward |
31 |
stabilization and development of the final migration technique was |
32 |
announced. And certainly, trying to shove the required development and |
33 |
testing into anything less something like six more months reasonable |
34 |
minimum, is folly indeed. Meanwhile, existing stable gets further and |
35 |
further behind and harder to maintain, and Gentoo looks more and more |
36 |
"legacy". |
37 |
|
38 |
Are you actually trying to delay the upgrade to OpenRC /forever/? Why? |
39 |
There's other questions I could ask but there ARE things worse than |
40 |
unasked questions. I'm seriously fighting the urge to go there as that |
41 |
bit of list history is something that doesn't need repeated, for sure. |
42 |
|
43 |
Meanwhile, Gentoo has always been about expecting Gentoo's users to take |
44 |
responsibility as their own sysadmins. Yes, we document, and automate |
45 |
where reasonably possible, but there's a reason for etc-update, dispatch- |
46 |
conf, etc. This is as good a case for letting Gentoo users take ultimate |
47 |
responsibility as admins on their own systems as it gets. We've waited |
48 |
long enough. The guides are ready. The systems are ready. The warnings |
49 |
are ready. Now it's time to pull that trigger. |
50 |
|
51 |
-- |
52 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
53 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
54 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |