| 1 |
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:45:04 -0500 |
| 2 |
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:04:22PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > New udev and separate /usr partition |
| 7 |
> > > ==================================== |
| 8 |
> > > Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported |
| 9 |
> > > configuration. If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and |
| 10 |
> > > alternatives should be investigated. If it isn't, a lot of |
| 11 |
> > > documentation will have to be updated. (And an alternative should |
| 12 |
> > > likely still be provided.) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> There is no disagreement about whether or not separate /usr will be |
| 15 |
> supported. No one has said that you can't have a separate /usr |
| 16 |
> partition. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Isn't meant /usr without initramfs, independent of how "broken" some |
| 20 |
people precieve it? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Was the council aware of the tracker bug we have open where we are |
| 23 |
> tracking the documentation changes explaining how to build an |
| 24 |
> initramfs if you have a separate /usr partition [1]? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That's an effort I welcome either way. So thanks for that. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> Also, I am going to reiterate what Greg said. This is not an issue |
| 30 |
> with udev, but with the entire linux ecosystem. |
| 31 |
> There are binaries in /{bin,sbin} which link against libraries in |
| 32 |
> /usr/lib for example. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
With udev-182 its no longer only the ecosystem which produce some |
| 36 |
broken products but udev itself which is broken. Otherwise we would |
| 37 |
have gone on like we always did, right? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> Also, with the appropriate documentation changes, which are being |
| 40 |
> worked on (see [1]), I feel that the statement above that newer udev |
| 41 |
> can't be stabled should be re-evaluated. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Long term newer udevs will be stabilized and I'm positive it wont take |
| 45 |
as long as grub2 or portage-2.2 ;) |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
There is no particular hurry as far as I know so let's give Chainsaw |
| 48 |
some time to look into an udev patch and don't go with the 30 day |
| 49 |
with bug fixing rule. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Support for initramfs was rather poor until recently. For instance |
| 52 |
dracut-0.17-r3 (haven't tested 0.18 so far) was the first to actually |
| 53 |
produce a usable initramfs for me. Thus far I crafted them manually if |
| 54 |
needed. Personally I would like to see the initramfs situation further |
| 55 |
improved, this includes genkernel and dracut stable on all platforms and |
| 56 |
then give it time to let the knowlage spread or alternatively an udev |
| 57 |
patch which allows current setups to continue to work before the |
| 58 |
council re-evaluates the udev stabilization again. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Cheers |
| 61 |
Ralph |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
> William |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407959 |
Archives