1 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>> On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
>>> The council has voted in favour of a separate /usr being supported |
7 |
>>> (5 yes, 1 no vote). |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> What? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Perhaps the council should be the ones to clarify, but I think the |
12 |
> vote only was for separate /usr being supported. The irc log seemed a |
13 |
> bit more nuanced than perhaps came out in the summary. Maybe I'm |
14 |
> misreading it. I didn't see anything in the log about a decision that |
15 |
> newer versions of udev are not able to be stabled. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> So, as to what "a separate /usr being supported" means, the impression |
18 |
> I got was "don't worry if you're running it, you'll have an upgrade |
19 |
> path." Right now it sounds like the proposed upgrade path is that |
20 |
> some devs will fork udev and keep it running more like the current one |
21 |
> (presumably breaking in the same situations that it already does |
22 |
> today). |
23 |
> |
24 |
Well I definitely read it as "supported without an initramfs": |
25 |
|
26 |
<Betelgeuse> Chainsaw: So to clarify a universal initramfs is not enough? |
27 |
<Chainsaw> Betelgeuse: No. |
28 |
|
29 |
Otherwise there is no contention, nor need to consider patches. |
30 |
|
31 |
>> And udev isn't even the problem, all you need is to mount your /usr from |
32 |
>> initramfs. So, the original proposal wasn't even a correct/valid |
33 |
>> proposal in the first place. |
34 |
> |
35 |
If udev simply requires partitions mounted before it is started, that allows |
36 |
those of us who don't need udev to get partitions mounted (still not sure |
37 |
how that works if you do) to continue with initscript-based approaches (eg |
38 |
those mentioned at end.) |
39 |
|
40 |
> Well, as far as I can tell the proposal that was voted on didn't even |
41 |
> mention udev at all, or initramfs. But, as you point out using an |
42 |
> initramfs is likely to be more reliable. |
43 |
> |
44 |
As above, the discussion prior certainly mentioned initramfs, and being able |
45 |
not to use one seems to be a requirement, or there'd be no need to talk |
46 |
about "forking" udev to maintain the old behaviour (which I believe is the |
47 |
ability to retry failed scripts in udev-postmount, which ideally requires |
48 |
udev to distinguish between failures due to file not found, and true |
49 |
failures.) |
50 |
|
51 |
> I'm sure the same arguments were going around back when people were |
52 |
> advocating for dropping bootloader support in the kernel and telling |
53 |
> people to bugger_off_msg. An initramfs creates more flexibility, at |
54 |
> the cost of an extra layer of software, just like grub. The main |
55 |
> downside to it is that it tends to require more maintenance, though if |
56 |
> you build the necessary drivers to mount /usr into the kernel I |
57 |
> imagine that an initramfs would probably work across differing kernel |
58 |
> versions. |
59 |
> |
60 |
One thing that has bothered me with the mooting of an initramfs as the new |
61 |
rescue system that rootfs has traditionally been, is at the we are told at |
62 |
the same time that the initramfs can be very minimal. If so, how does it |
63 |
provide the same capabilities as rootfs (for those of us who can localmount |
64 |
without udev-configured devices)? |
65 |
|
66 |
> In any case, we should still be updating documentation/etc regardless. |
67 |
> A better guide to dracut/genkernel would be useful no matter how this |
68 |
> turns out. I'd like to see stable Gentoo stay current with udev in |
69 |
> any case, but I don't mind using a forked version as long as it is of |
70 |
> similar quality to the original. As you've pointed out already, that |
71 |
> may not actually help people with a separate /usr, so I'd encourage |
72 |
> people to get an initramfs working. |
73 |
> |
74 |
There are two alternatives currently on the forums which don't require an |
75 |
initramfs, nor patches to udev. earlymounts[1] is an initscript which runs |
76 |
before udev in sysinit, which appears to be having teething troubles eg with |
77 |
fsck, and I have posted an approach[2] which allows udev to start after |
78 |
localmount, ie in the manner it used to, which has no problems with fsck, |
79 |
but is trickier to setup. |
80 |
|
81 |
Of course, neither of these can be used if you have root on lvm or encrypted |
82 |
partitions, ie the cases which traditionally required an initrd, or if you |
83 |
have need of udev-configured devices to get through localmount. |
84 |
|
85 |
[1] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-918466.html |
86 |
[2] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-901206.html |
87 |
-- |
88 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |