1 |
'evening, Neil. |
2 |
|
3 |
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 09:17:02PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
4 |
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote: |
5 |
|
6 |
> > > I suppose that what I am about to say isn't really relevant, but it is |
7 |
> > > unfortunate over the past year that people blamed udev specifically |
8 |
> > > for this. It is true that it does things that don't work if /usr isn't |
9 |
> > > mounted, but eudev does as well, since it is basically the same code. |
10 |
|
11 |
> > Who else is there to blame? We are continually being told that a |
12 |
> > separate /usr is "broken", as though this were some unfortunate act of |
13 |
> > <insert your deity here>, much like an earthquake. This gets |
14 |
> > patronising really quickly. (Please note, I'm NOT blaming you here. I |
15 |
> > appreciate that you're as much victim as Dale or me or anyone else |
16 |
> > round here.) |
17 |
|
18 |
> It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction, now it |
19 |
> has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer devote the |
20 |
> increasing time needed to support what has now become an edge case. |
21 |
|
22 |
That's precisely the sort of patronising comment I was complaining of in |
23 |
my previous paragraph. It isn't "evolution". It has been a decision of |
24 |
somebody to move it. Who? |
25 |
|
26 |
> > No, this breaking of separate /usr was done by some specific project, |
27 |
> > some specific person, even, in a supreme display of incompetence, |
28 |
> > malice, or arrogance. How come this project and this person have |
29 |
> > managed to maintain such a low profile? There seems to have been some |
30 |
> > sort of conspiracy to do this breakage in secret, each member of the |
31 |
> > coven pushing the plot until the damage was irrevocable. Who was it? |
32 |
|
33 |
> So which was it, one specific person or a coven of conspirators? This is |
34 |
> open source, secret conspiracies don't really work well. If this really |
35 |
> was such a bad move, do you really think the likes of Greg K-H would not |
36 |
> have stepped in? Or is he a conspirator too? |
37 |
|
38 |
I know not how many people were involved. Don't you think it noteworthy |
39 |
that we on this group first learnt of the change when it had already |
40 |
happened? I have no idea whether people like GK-H would have been aware |
41 |
of it either. |
42 |
|
43 |
> > > If you read flameeyes' blog post, you will get a better idea of what |
44 |
> > > the issue involves. It is the entire boot process and how to deal |
45 |
> > > with which software is considered critical for booting. |
46 |
|
47 |
> > > There is no reason to rebuild your server; we aren't telling you you |
48 |
> > > have to merge /usr into /. The only thing we are saying is that you |
49 |
> > > will need to use an initramfs if you are going to keep them separate. |
50 |
|
51 |
> > "Only"? ONLY??? You say that as though creating an initramfs were a |
52 |
> > trifle, trivial, and of no moment. |
53 |
|
54 |
> For an Ubuntu user, maybe that's true? For someone that feels comfortable |
55 |
> compiling their own kernel and configuring the entire system by hand, |
56 |
> running dracut or genkernel should not be too demanding. Even creating |
57 |
> your own initramfs is hardly rocket science. |
58 |
|
59 |
It may or may not be demanding for any particular administrator. It is |
60 |
undoubtedly tedious and time consuming. Installing RAID and LVM2 were |
61 |
(for me) also time consuming, but at least I got something worthwhile out |
62 |
of them in the end. Creating an initramfs is a lot of work just to end |
63 |
up in the same place. |
64 |
|
65 |
> > Ah yes, the deficiencies of the kernel. It can only mount one file |
66 |
> > system when it starts. It's incapable of mounting LVM2 systems (even |
67 |
> > though it contains LVM2 code). It's incapable of mounting encrypted |
68 |
> > partitions (even though it contains encryption code), ...... So because |
69 |
> > of these holes, a system must either be constrained in it's makeup (as |
70 |
> > mine is) or use an ugly hack. It can (still) mount RAID partitions, I |
71 |
> > suppose. |
72 |
|
73 |
> That's plain wrong. The kernel doesn't include LVM code, only the |
74 |
> device mapper functions that LVM uses, It does include RAID code. |
75 |
|
76 |
> > > I have a pretty simple setup, but I have been using an initramfs |
77 |
> > > which I built some time ago with genkernel and I barely know it is |
78 |
> > > there. |
79 |
|
80 |
> > Until, after some update, it reminds you of its presence by not booting |
81 |
> > your machine. That's the sort of excitement I can do without. |
82 |
|
83 |
> Do you have any examples of this actually happening? Not "I heard a bloke |
84 |
> down the pub talking about a mate of a mate who broke his system with an |
85 |
> initramfs" but actual documented examples of how this can occur in normal |
86 |
> use. |
87 |
|
88 |
There have been several times in the past few years when precisely that |
89 |
could have happened in Gentoo - the updating of the Baselayout in 2011, |
90 |
the various shenanigans with udev, for example. Dale's former system |
91 |
broke because of an initrd. I get nervous every time something like lvm |
92 |
get updated. |
93 |
|
94 |
> -- |
95 |
> Neil Bothwick |
96 |
|
97 |
-- |
98 |
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). |