1 |
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 05:16:18PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
2 |
> I'm still happy enough with building udev out from systemd tree and |
3 |
> letting sep. /usr consept from 90s to finally die in favour of |
4 |
> simplifying the system. |
5 |
|
6 |
It's from a lot earlier than the 90s. Perhaps we should get rid of pipes, |
7 |
too- they're /so/ 1970s. |
8 |
|
9 |
Torvalds expressed it well[1]: |
10 |
You made the statement that you want to get away from 30 years of |
11 |
history, but the fact is, "30 years of history" is a damn good argument |
12 |
for "that thing worked". |
13 |
|
14 |
> The BIOSes have been upgraded last century to support booting from |
15 |
> larger partitions, the need has long past. |
16 |
> Nobody has ever provided a valid reason for using sep. /usr in the ML |
17 |
> either. |
18 |
> |
19 |
So at the same time as you have never heard a valid reason, the need (which |
20 |
you have never understood) is long past? Pfft. |
21 |
|
22 |
To reiterate again: many of us are used to keeping /usr on a separate |
23 |
partition for security and backup purposes (other use-cases for a separate |
24 |
partition include mounting /usr over NFS, or a common partition for |
25 |
virtual machines.) I'm sure other people would have more. Irrespective, |
26 |
it should be about mechanism, not policy, and certainly not about breaking |
27 |
existing setups. |
28 |
|
29 |
Many of the advertised benefits of the "merge /bin and /sbin to /usr" |
30 |
concept are in fact just benefits of having a separate /usr partition, |
31 |
though of course they're presented as new and unique to the merge. So, if |
32 |
you accept those as benefits, you cannot logically deny them as benefits of |
33 |
a traditional /usr split. |
34 |
|
35 |
Further, as one user pointed out[2]: |
36 |
"I'd be more likely to just stick /usr back on / than create an initramfs |
37 |
- it was only because the LVM guide recommended that /usr go on its own |
38 |
partition that I now face this situation." |
39 |
|
40 |
We were given a simple requirement ages ago: udev requires /usr and |
41 |
/var (and going forward may require /opt for 3rd party drivers) mounted |
42 |
before it starts, not for udev itself but for helper scripts that it may |
43 |
call. Why get bogged down in anything else? |
44 |
|
45 |
The recommended (which became "supported") method to do this was |
46 |
to use an initramfs, since apparently any chicken-and-egg problems (such |
47 |
as requiring a udev-initiated device to mount /usr) are easier to handle |
48 |
there. (Note that no-one has ever provided a description of how they did |
49 |
that, eg for their bluetooth keyboard, so that the issues, and how they |
50 |
are addressed, could be made more transparent to everyone.) |
51 |
|
52 |
A few us are happily running initramfs-less machines by fulfilling the |
53 |
requirement with a couple of patches to openrc initscripts[2]. (It's |
54 |
been working fine here since last August.) This works in the case where |
55 |
you didn't need an initramfs before, ie have modules for local-disks and |
56 |
filesystems built-in, root not on LVM or encrypted, but other partitions |
57 |
might be-- which includes LVM users who followed the Gentoo docs. |
58 |
|
59 |
If that's not enough, there is *already* a forked udev version which quite |
60 |
a few users have been using[3] and reporting success with. I'd hope the |
61 |
new fork would just collaborate with them, but it's entirely up to them |
62 |
what they do. |
63 |
|
64 |
All of this argues that, irrespective of your views of the layouts admins |
65 |
prefer to use, they will still use them regardless, and indeed users will |
66 |
put in the work you yourself told them to.[4] I really don't understand |
67 |
why people are getting beat up on, just for going ahead and doing what |
68 |
they've been told to: provide code for an alternative. |
69 |
|
70 |
If a Gentoo developer doesn't understand what a Gentoo project means, |
71 |
that's his problem. Nor should Gentoo projects suddenly change what they |
72 |
are because "the internet" doesn't understand them. That's a ridiculous |
73 |
basis for any change. |
74 |
|
75 |
The thing none of the proponents of an initramfs, with no other support |
76 |
for a separate /usr (apart from busybox sep /usr which does NOT fulfil the |
77 |
requirements presented by Chainsaw, which Council voted to approve before: |
78 |
for a start it doesn't handle /usr on LVM), have ever answered is: |
79 |
|
80 |
How do you deal with the mismatch problem? |
81 |
|
82 |
That is, when you have programs or libs upgraded, just as part of normal |
83 |
system upgrades, and they are now different, potentially incompatible, to |
84 |
the initramfs. (The potential exists, therefore it must be addressed for |
85 |
a solution even to be considered as robust.) |
86 |
|
87 |
Do you now need another script to run after every emerge to check that |
88 |
files in your initramfs are in sync? After all, we've been told the |
89 |
initramfs is "the new root": iow that we should think of it as our rescue |
90 |
system, so this matters. |
91 |
|
92 |
At the same time, we've been told "it's only a few hundred kilobytes at |
93 |
most." That contradiction has never been answered, either. |
94 |
|
95 |
[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/492134/ |
96 |
[2] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-901206.html |
97 |
[3] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-934678.html |
98 |
[4] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6987380.html#6987380 |
99 |
-- |
100 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |