On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 07:51:03PM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:44:59AM +0200, Stelian Ionescu wrote
> > On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 18:38 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:26:03AM -0700, Greg KH wrote
> > > > What specifically is your objection to udev today? Is it doing things
> > > > you don't like? Too big? Something else?
> > >
> > > Today, it requires an initramfs if /usr is not physically on /. That
> > > is due in large part to the fact that it has been rolled into the
> > > systemd tarball, and inherited some of systemd's code and limitations,
> > > despite the fact that udev is still a separate binary.
> > This is absolutely and definitely false. Where did you hear such
> > nonsense ?
> 1) Did you sleep through the /usr and initramfs flamewars?
> 2) The udev sources have merged into the systemd tarball. See...
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/17392 And note
> the date is April 3rd, not April 1st. If they were really as worried
> about compatability as they claim, you wouldn't need to use initramfs
If you saw my last message on this subject, there is no need to use
initramfs if you don't want to use it.
See the sep-usr use flag on the ~arch version of busybox and the
instructions you get when you turn that on.