| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:13:48 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > On 2016.10.25 22:52, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 7 |
>> >> |
| 8 |
>> >> Personally I'd rather see us go the other way, ensure udev settles |
| 9 |
>> >> before localmount runs, and maybe ewarn if /dev/disk/by-* is in fstab |
| 10 |
>> >> or something. Leave the migration away from these paths to general |
| 11 |
>> >> education of system setup, since they technically are valid, just not |
| 12 |
>> >> ideal. |
| 13 |
>> >> |
| 14 |
>> >> |
| 15 |
>> > +1 |
| 16 |
>> > |
| 17 |
>> > Add udev-settle now. |
| 18 |
>> > Have an advisory news item that says why its been done and what |
| 19 |
>> > users can do if they don't like it or don't need it, and what will happen |
| 20 |
>> > long term. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> That seems sensible. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> > At the same time, depreciate the use of udev symlinks in fstab. |
| 26 |
>> > |
| 27 |
>> > Some time later, remove udev-settle and have another news item. |
| 28 |
>> > By now, users will have reacted to the first news item or sympathy |
| 29 |
>> > can be minimal. |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
>> Why ever remove udev-settle, or deprecate the udev symlinks? Is there |
| 32 |
>> something wrong with them, other than a bug when you try to mount |
| 33 |
>> things before they are created? |
| 34 |
>> |
| 35 |
>> If anything the udev syntax seems a lot more "standard" since it |
| 36 |
>> follows the normal device, mountpoint, etc syntax in fstab. |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
>> Nothing would prevent users from using the other syntax and removing |
| 39 |
>> the settle step if they desire. It just seems odd to not support a |
| 40 |
>> fairly standard syntax in OpenRC, unless this is part of some larger |
| 41 |
>> trend where udev itself is moving away from it, etc. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> The reliance on udev-settle doesn't follow the long-term Gentoo policy |
| 44 |
> of being blazing impossibly fast. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
I'm pretty sure you are joking around here. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Seriously though, it makes more sense to have a conservative default |
| 49 |
(udev-settle). Especially since OpenRC is not well-equipped to deal |
| 50 |
with event-based device management. |
Archives