1 |
On Thursday 15 Sep 2011 16:13:26 Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: |
2 |
> On Thursday, 15. September 2011 16:48:45 Joost Roeleveld wrote: |
3 |
> > I agree he is wrong about the solution as well. |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > I have actually just posted my idea to the gentoo-dev list to see how the |
6 |
> > developers actually feel about possible splitting udev into 2 parts. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> I've read it there. Thanks for doing this. |
9 |
|
10 |
Thanks Joost for posting in the dev list and for explaining your proposed |
11 |
approach there. I've just read your thread in the dev list: |
12 |
|
13 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/72969 |
14 |
|
15 |
|
16 |
Zac's response helped me understand better what the Gentoo devs have been |
17 |
suggesting here: |
18 |
|
19 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_020fa80d72c84c5b587b90d8001264ef.xml |
20 |
|
21 |
and it does make sense - their version of initramfs-'lite'. |
22 |
|
23 |
From what I understand: |
24 |
|
25 |
1. The minimal initramfs will only need to be built once (and rarely rebuilt |
26 |
thereafter). This removes one of my fears and it was a main objection for me |
27 |
- I would hate to have to rebuild initramfs every time I roll a new kernel, or |
28 |
libs and what not of fs happen to be udpated, etc. |
29 |
|
30 |
2. If initramfs fails, then Zac says it will drop you into a minimal shell, so |
31 |
we should still be able to recover/troubleshoot/reboot from there. |
32 |
|
33 |
The only drawback is the 2 minutes it will take a user the first time this |
34 |
change is introduced to build the initramfs and change the kernel line in |
35 |
grub.conf. I am warming up to this proposal because it seems to me that it |
36 |
will end up being less painful that I originally thought. |
37 |
|
38 |
However, I still see it as a workaround to a more elegant solution, which as |
39 |
Joost and others suggest would involve separating udev's probing for devices |
40 |
with the rules running of scripts for them. |
41 |
-- |
42 |
Regards, |
43 |
Mick |