1 |
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@×××.de> wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:33:34PM +0200, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: |
3 |
>> On Monday, 12. September 2011 15:02:48 Alan Mackenzie wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> > Hope nobody minds me starting a new thread with an accurate name. |
6 |
> |
7 |
>> > Which version of udev is it that has this nauseating feature of needing |
8 |
>> > /usr loaded to boot? |
9 |
> |
10 |
>> > Somewhere in that version's source will be several (or lots of) "/usr". |
11 |
>> > Just how difficult is it going to be to replace "/usr/bin" with "/bin" |
12 |
>> > throughout the source? |
13 |
> |
14 |
>> you misunderstood something. udev is able to run arbitrary scripts. Some of |
15 |
>> those scripts are located in /usr/* or need something there. I doubt you will |
16 |
>> find references to /usr in the udev-sources. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Well, I'm a hacker. udev is free source, therefore fair game. I don't |
19 |
> intend to put up with this nonsense without a fight. As far as I can |
20 |
> make out, this is just one guy, Kay Sievers, who's on a power trip. Are |
21 |
> there any indications at all that he actually talked to anybody in the |
22 |
> wide world before making such a far reaching decision? |
23 |
|
24 |
udev has always been able to run arbitrary scripts. The trouble is |
25 |
that the arbitrary scripts other packages provide sometimes call for |
26 |
things under /usr. |
27 |
|
28 |
If I've read messages over the last couple days correctly, I think the |
29 |
recent change is that some stuff udev *directly* depends on, as part |
30 |
of the udev package itself, is being moved into /usr. |
31 |
|
32 |
My best guess is that this allows udev to force the issue; it gets |
33 |
blamed for other packages not loading correctly (when those other |
34 |
packages put things in places which may or may not be available yet), |
35 |
so the udev developer chose to force systems to have all of /usr |
36 |
available before udev is run. |
37 |
|
38 |
The first step in a clean solution, IMO, is to revert that change. The |
39 |
second step is to fix the 'silent failure' problem for packages which |
40 |
depend on /usr before /usr is available. |
41 |
|
42 |
You might do it with a dependency tree which would control the order |
43 |
things are done, but some packages may not be able to know what they |
44 |
depend on. (take dhcpd, for example; it doesn't know what kind of |
45 |
weird magic someone else put in exit-hooks) |
46 |
|
47 |
Another solution would be to have a retry queue like what |
48 |
Schreckenbauer (sorry; too many Mikes) was suggesting. It might be |
49 |
difficult to discern a rulescript failure that stems from another rule |
50 |
needing to be run first versus a rulescript failure that stems from, |
51 |
e.g. a syntax error. |
52 |
|
53 |
-- |
54 |
:wq |