1 |
Samuli Suominen posted on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 04:04:19 +0200 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 23/01/13 21:06, Felix Kuperjans wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Felix Kuperjans |
5 |
>>> <felix@××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
6 |
>>>> Samuli Suominen wrote: |
7 |
>>>>> please review this news item |
8 |
>>>> |
9 |
>>>> /dev/root is no longer available in this udev version |
10 |
>>>> |
11 |
>>>> I suggest including in the news item, that /dev/root must be replaced |
12 |
>>>> with the actual root device or LABEL=..., UUID=... and the like in |
13 |
>>>> /etc/fstab. |
14 |
>>>> |
15 |
>> Well, *if* a line with /dev/root is present in /etc/fstab, the system |
16 |
>> does not boot up properly (tested it right now). |
17 |
>> I always though such a line in /etc/fstab is needed so that fsck is run |
18 |
>> on the root filesystem... |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> Removing the line completely boots up fine, but the filesystem has not |
21 |
>> been fscked on boot. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> I don't think we ever instructed users for adding such line... if we |
24 |
> did, I'll eat my words. |
25 |
> So, I don't think it's necessary to instruct them away from it either, |
26 |
> never seen such fstab line. |
27 |
|
28 |
Well technically, we used (and still use, see below) the uppercase |
29 |
/dev/ROOT, with instructions documenting what to replace it with. But |
30 |
some users apparently simply lowercased that ROOT, and for years it "just |
31 |
worked". (Below output edited slightly for posting. $>> indicates the |
32 |
shell prompt.): |
33 |
|
34 |
$>>equery b fstab |
35 |
* Searching for fstab ... |
36 |
sys-apps/baselayout-2.2 (/usr/share/baselayout/fstab) |
37 |
|
38 |
$>>grep -i /dev/root /usr/share/baselayout/fstab |
39 |
/dev/ROOT / ext3 noatime 0 1 |
40 |
|
41 |
$>> |
42 |
|
43 |
[TLDR folks can stop there. The rest is historic observation, arguably |
44 |
interesting, admittedly ranty, but not vital.] |
45 |
|
46 |
Years ago (remember, my first successful gentoo install was 2004.1), the |
47 |
fstab example file found in /usr/share/baselayout/fstab was packaged as |
48 |
/etc/fstab directly. Now, the handbook of the era took great pains to |
49 |
guide people thru editing it appropriately, saying the ALLCAPS entries |
50 |
were intended to be replaced as appropriate for the individual install, |
51 |
AND people were expected to actually use etc-update or the like for its |
52 |
intended purpose, so people weren't /supposed/ to have it simply |
53 |
overwritten. |
54 |
|
55 |
Unfortunately, a lot of folks (<sarcasm> yes, gentooers, could you |
56 |
believe it? </sarcasm>) couldn't read instructions properly, and I'd say |
57 |
gentoo-user averaged at least two threads a month from folks who had |
58 |
killed their fstab with an update and a simple etc-update direct-replace, |
59 |
or couldn't get gentoo self-booting in the first place due to not editing |
60 |
the file at all, despite the instructions to do so. |
61 |
|
62 |
And I'm sure many more read the threads on the list and in the forums, |
63 |
and didn't make a mistake they otherwise would have... I know I |
64 |
certainly did. I've said before that I was actively helping people on |
65 |
the lists well before I got my own gentoo system up and running. (Turned |
66 |
out there was a bug in at least amd64's 2004.0 handling of the then still |
67 |
new NPTL, that I ran into somewhere along the way. I don't know what the |
68 |
fix was, but 2004.1 installed just fine from stage-1, so it must have |
69 |
been fixed... As a result, I was active on the lists for several months |
70 |
before I actually got my own install working, by which time I knew the |
71 |
documentation pretty well, given the help I was giving to others based on |
72 |
it the whole time.) |
73 |
|
74 |
|
75 |
Some of us were actually rather sad to see the file moved to /usr/share, |
76 |
since with it working as it did, gentoo newbies tended to learn to |
77 |
actually pay attention to the instructions reasonably early on, after |
78 |
being pointed to them. As I've said before, it was well known and |
79 |
frequently posted in the user lists back then that gentoo wasn't a |
80 |
handholding distribution. Gentooers, as sysadmins of their own systems, |
81 |
were expected to take responsibility for them, reading instructions, |
82 |
etc. If they preferred not to or couldn't learn to do so after a couple |
83 |
mistakes like that, well, there were (and are still) other distributions |
84 |
more suited to them, and in all seriousness, not to put people down but |
85 |
simply to recommend a distro that would be a better fit for them, it |
86 |
wasn't rare at all to see a recommendation that people seriously assess |
87 |
whether they wanted to take on that responsibility, and if not, they |
88 |
really should be on a different distro, as gentoo definitely wasn't for |
89 |
them! |
90 |
|
91 |
|
92 |
So a /dev/ROOT entry was and actually still is part of the default fstab, |
93 |
it's just that the baselayout package places that fstab elsewhere, these |
94 |
days. |
95 |
|
96 |
Evidently, some users saw the example and simply lowercased that |
97 |
/dev/ROOT entry into /dev/root, despite the handbook specifically |
98 |
recommending replacing it with the appropriate /dev/[sh]daX parameter, |
99 |
and because of the kernel/devfs/udev entry for that, it "just worked". |
100 |
|
101 |
Now that long stale entry is beginning to cause issues. |
102 |
|
103 |
|
104 |
Meanwhile, if we still shipped /etc/fstab directly, as back then, I |
105 |
expect we'd have way less troubles with people not paying attention to |
106 |
instructions and trying to foist their responsibilities as sysadmin onto |
107 |
gentoo devs, as they'd either learn how vital it is early on, or |
108 |
ultimately go looking for a distribution more appropriately matched to |
109 |
their needs. IMO the mistake we've made is that we TRY TOO HARD to |
110 |
coddle users, doing a good enough job of it most of the time that they |
111 |
expect it ALL the time now. But as I've said before, gentoo's not ABOUT |
112 |
handholding/babysitting, or at least it wasn't. If that's what people |
113 |
want/need/expect, no shame in admitting it. Rather, there's pride in the |
114 |
fact that a user could intelligently assess the situation and make a |
115 |
reasonable decision that gentoo is NOT for them. There's all sorts of |
116 |
distros standing in /line/ to fill that coddling spot, and it's something |
117 |
gentoo simply cannot and will not ever be good at, so why do we try so |
118 |
hard, only to let people down at the worst time because we're effectively |
119 |
promising them a coddling service we can't reliably deliver? |
120 |
|
121 |
|
122 |
Yes, deliver the documentation. Print a warning in pkg_pretend and in |
123 |
pkg_postinst as well. Maybe even do a news item if we think it's worth |
124 |
the trouble. But after that, RESOLVED/READTHEDOCS. It'll be worse for a |
125 |
few months, but soon enough, we should have far fewer bugs of that sort, |
126 |
as people will have learned. |
127 |
|
128 |
|
129 |
And yes, that may seem a rather harsh policy. But gentoo was attracting |
130 |
users in droves back then and was a seriously up and coming distro. Now |
131 |
look at it. We have are nitch, yes, but we're afraid to properly claim |
132 |
it and unhesitatingly recommend that people look elsewhere if they find |
133 |
it inappropriate for them. We've lost the identity that make gentoo what |
134 |
it /was/, and in the process, we've simply become one among many, an |
135 |
"also-ran". |
136 |
|
137 |
-- |
138 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
139 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
140 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |