| 1 |
Hi, Michael. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:33:34PM +0200, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: |
| 4 |
> Hi Alan, |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> On Monday, 12. September 2011 15:02:48 Alan Mackenzie wrote: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> > Hope nobody minds me starting a new thread with an accurate name. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> > Which version of udev is it that has this nauseating feature of needing |
| 11 |
> > /usr loaded to boot? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> > Somewhere in that version's source will be several (or lots of) "/usr". |
| 14 |
> > Just how difficult is it going to be to replace "/usr/bin" with "/bin" |
| 15 |
> > throughout the source? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> you misunderstood something. udev is able to run arbitrary scripts. Some of |
| 18 |
> those scripts are located in /usr/* or need something there. I doubt you will |
| 19 |
> find references to /usr in the udev-sources. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Well, I'm a hacker. udev is free source, therefore fair game. I don't |
| 22 |
intend to put up with this nonsense without a fight. As far as I can |
| 23 |
make out, this is just one guy, Kay Sievers, who's on a power trip. Are |
| 24 |
there any indications at all that he actually talked to anybody in the |
| 25 |
wide world before making such a far reaching decision? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
On my current system, udev (164-r2) works without an earlily loaded /usr. |
| 28 |
Seemingly, later versions don't. That was why I was asking for somebody |
| 29 |
to identify one of these later versions for me. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> > udev is part of the kernel. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> No. udev is usperspace. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
OK, udev is in userspace, _very_ _close_ to the kernel. ;-) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> > How come the kernel hackers aren't up in arms about this as much as |
| 38 |
> > we are? Or are they, maybe? In which case, maybe the kernel people |
| 39 |
> > would welcome an option to disrequire the early mounting of /usr as |
| 40 |
> > much as we would. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> > Anyhow, I'd like to take a peek at the source code which does this evil |
| 43 |
> > thing. Would somebody please tell me which version of udev is involved. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> Every udev version works this way. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
My udev (164-r2) is just fine at the moment. I'm not sure what you mean |
| 48 |
by that statement. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> Fixing udev to continue working with separate /usr is far from trivial imo. |
| 51 |
> Changing some paths is not the way to go for sure. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Maybe, maybe not. But it seems a changing of paths (/ -> /usr) is |
| 54 |
precisely what is breaking newer udevs. It might be possible to change |
| 55 |
them back. This could involve moving a fair amount of stuff from /usr to |
| 56 |
/, but not half as much as moving the entire /usr partition. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
> First of all, udev has to distinguish between "device not present" and "script |
| 59 |
> error of some kind". Failing scripts have to be queued somehow for later |
| 60 |
> execution. If a script keeps failing, it has to be removed from that queue, |
| 61 |
> with a message to syslog or something like that. If udev needs a script in |
| 62 |
> /usr/* to mount /usr then there's a chicken-egg-problem, which could be hard |
| 63 |
> to solve (if possible at all without moving things from /usr/ to /). |
| 64 |
> Note, that I am wild guessing here, I did not study the udev sources or any |
| 65 |
> related script/rule :) |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
This sounds like a separate (if related) problem. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
> > Thanks. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
> Best, |
| 72 |
> Michael |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
-- |
| 75 |
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). |
Archives