1 |
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 08:02:07PM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
2 |
> Handling separate /usr support |
3 |
> ============================== |
4 |
> WilliamH requested approval for two methods to support separate /usr |
5 |
> systems[2]. The discussion is closely related to recent opinons on udev, such |
6 |
> as e.g. [1], because the main reason to force a system without separate /usr |
7 |
> during boot is to allow newer versions of udev to be used. |
8 |
> The originally announced item of discussing the removal of gen_usr_ldscript |
9 |
> has been retracted[4]. |
10 |
> - approve/disapprove plan (forcing everyone to take action, and |
11 |
> implement one of the two "supported" solutions) |
12 |
> |
13 |
> WilliamH requests a council vote to allow migrating everyone after bugs |
14 |
> [5,6,7] are resolved. He proposes a news item to announce this that allows to |
15 |
> assume after a given period of time that everyone who is using split /usr is |
16 |
> using a method to mount /usr before boot. The focus is purely on this topic. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> rich0 prefers to move on until suport for separate /usr becomes a |
19 |
> barrier, and handle things from there. This allows for alternative |
20 |
> solutions to be developed and put forward. He favours waiting somewhat |
21 |
> to see developments of the udev fork. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Chainsaw is a strong proponent for waiting a month and see how the new |
24 |
> udev fork develops itself. If within a month no solution is provided by |
25 |
> the udev fork, things need to be moved forward in WilliamH's proposed |
26 |
> way. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> scarabeus approves the plan. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> betelgeuse likes to ensure users won't be caught off guard, but has no |
31 |
> preference for any direction taken in particular. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> graaff's main concern is how the problem is tied to udev, or not. A fork of |
34 |
> udev may not change the situation regarding separate /usr, hence delaying a |
35 |
> decision now is not sensical. Opt-in system for people to ensure they can |
36 |
> boot is pre-requisite. If this cannot be ensured, we have to wait. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> grobian disapproves the plan, since there will be systems that cannot easily |
39 |
> be changed to ensure /usr being mounted at boot, and it is no good to expel |
40 |
> users of (security) updates just because of that. With the use of a special |
41 |
> profile (masks/unmasks, variables and/or use-flags), users that want to move |
42 |
> on, can opt-in to getting packages that require non separate /usr. |
43 |
|
44 |
So, that's a nice summary, but, what is the end result here? |
45 |
|
46 |
I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng, |
47 |
really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit |
48 |
more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked |
49 |
"udev" all those years ago, maybe I still should...) |
50 |
|
51 |
The commits so far in that repo are fun to watch for a variety of |
52 |
reasons, none of which I should repeat hear less I get a bunch of people |
53 |
mad at me :) |
54 |
|
55 |
But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork? What are you |
56 |
trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be |
57 |
accomplished by: |
58 |
- getting patches approved upstream |
59 |
or: |
60 |
- keeping a simple set of patches outside of the upstream tree and |
61 |
applying them to each release |
62 |
|
63 |
I understand the bizarre need of some people to want to build the udev |
64 |
binary without the build-time dependencies that systemd requires, but |
65 |
surely that is a set of simple Makefile patches, right? And is |
66 |
something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of a working |
67 |
udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes, it is a |
68 |
regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of more |
69 |
processes to be spawned before booting is finished.) |
70 |
|
71 |
As I posted elsewhere, working on a project based on "hate" only lasts |
72 |
so long. I should know, that's the reason I started udev in the first |
73 |
place over 9 years ago[1]. |
74 |
|
75 |
You need to have a real solid goal in place in order to be able to keep |
76 |
this up in the long-run. Otherwise you are going to burn yourself out, |
77 |
and end up alienating a lot of people along the way. |
78 |
|
79 |
Oh, and if _anyone_ thinks that changing udev is going to "solve" the |
80 |
"no separate /usr without an initrd" issue, I have a bridge I want to |
81 |
sell them. |
82 |
|
83 |
thanks, |
84 |
|
85 |
greg k-h |
86 |
|
87 |
[1] Long story, best told over beers, take me up on it the next time you |
88 |
see me, I'll buy. |