| 1 |
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:05:30 +0200 |
| 2 |
Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebrecht@×××××.fr> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> The 29/03/12, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:20:04 +0100 |
| 6 |
> > David W Noon <dwnoon@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > > The Gentoo developers have been discussing just that. The reason |
| 9 |
> > > is that many of the daemons that can be started by udev scripts |
| 10 |
> > > require work files on /var, so we could well need /var mounted |
| 11 |
> > > too. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Which begs the obvious question, |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Why on earth is udev launching daemons in EARLY BOOT? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> udev launches nothing. udev scripts do. These scripts are not part of |
| 18 |
> udev. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
OK, semantics. Let me re-phrase: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Why is a third party script, running in the context of the udev |
| 24 |
universe, indiscriminately allowed to launch daemons at early boot |
| 25 |
time? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I don't think I agree with Neil in that this is a udev design flaw (as |
| 28 |
any "fix" will be worse than the "flaw"). Instead it looks to me like |
| 29 |
a classic case of |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
"You are free to do anything you want but if you break it you keep the |
| 32 |
pieces. If you do something stupid, it's not my problem and you're on |
| 33 |
your own." |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I see nothing wrong with udev applying some reasonable constraints such |
| 36 |
as clearly documenting at what point in the boot process udev is in a |
| 37 |
position to arbitrarily run anything. Earlier than that point, |
| 38 |
"anything" does not actually apply. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Alan McKinnnon |
| 43 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives