1 |
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 07:51:03PM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:44:59AM +0200, Stelian Ionescu wrote |
3 |
> > On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 18:38 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:26:03AM -0700, Greg KH wrote |
5 |
> > > > What specifically is your objection to udev today? Is it doing things |
6 |
> > > > you don't like? Too big? Something else? |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > Today, it requires an initramfs if /usr is not physically on /. That |
9 |
> > > is due in large part to the fact that it has been rolled into the |
10 |
> > > systemd tarball, and inherited some of systemd's code and limitations, |
11 |
> > > despite the fact that udev is still a separate binary. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > This is absolutely and definitely false. Where did you hear such |
14 |
> > nonsense ? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> 1) Did you sleep through the /usr and initramfs flamewars? |
17 |
> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken |
18 |
> |
19 |
> 2) The udev sources have merged into the systemd tarball. See... |
20 |
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/17392 And note |
21 |
> the date is April 3rd, not April 1st. If they were really as worried |
22 |
> about compatability as they claim, you wouldn't need to use initramfs |
23 |
|
24 |
If you saw my last message on this subject, there is no need to use |
25 |
initramfs if you don't want to use it. |
26 |
|
27 |
See the sep-usr use flag on the ~arch version of busybox and the |
28 |
instructions you get when you turn that on. |
29 |
|
30 |
William |