1 |
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Alecks Gates <alecks.g@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Alecks Gates <alecks.g@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
5 |
>>>> |
6 |
>>>> On 2013-08-18 10:55 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
7 |
>>>>> |
8 |
>>>>> And, putting aside systemd and getting back on topic to the council's |
9 |
>>>>> decision of (eventually) not supporting separated /usr without an |
10 |
>>>>> initramfs; have you ever stopped to consider that, perhaps, that's the |
11 |
>>>>> best *technical* decision? (*gasp*) |
12 |
>>>> |
13 |
>>>> |
14 |
>>>> That is *not* the concern here, Canek, and that should be obvious from the comments here. |
15 |
>>>> |
16 |
>>>> Repeat: the primary concern is *not* about separate /usr without initramfs. |
17 |
>>>> |
18 |
>>>> The primary concern is that systemd will eventually be shoved down our throats whether we want it or not, and using eudev or mdev or *anything* other than systemd (ie OpenRC/eudev) will. |
19 |
>>>> |
20 |
>>> *snip* |
21 |
>>>> |
22 |
>>>>> When you have almost all distributions converging on that, and even |
23 |
>>>>> *the OpenRC maintainer* (which is the one pushing this, BTW, not the |
24 |
>>>>> systemd guys) supporting that decision, don't you think that perhaps, |
25 |
>>>>> just*perhaps*, everybody screaming about the sky falling (which, BTW, |
26 |
>>>>> |
27 |
>>>>> they are certainly noisy, but I really don't think are that many) are |
28 |
>>>>> overreacting and even (*gasp* again) wrong? |
29 |
>>>> |
30 |
>>>> |
31 |
>>>> Again, the main issue is not about separate /usr, so please stop trying to deflect the subject... |
32 |
>>>> |
33 |
>>> |
34 |
>>> Isn't that what this thread is about? "Optional /usr merge in Gentoo" |
35 |
>>> |
36 |
>>> Can someone please explain to me what's so hard and/or complicated |
37 |
>>> about making an initramfs? At this point in time it's extremely |
38 |
>>> simple for me, but I only manage relatively simple systems (although |
39 |
>>> I'd like that to change soon). All I do is add one extra line (for |
40 |
>>> example - "dracut -H --kver=3.11.0-rc6") to my kernel install |
41 |
>>> procedure. |
42 |
>>> |
43 |
>>> Granted, the only reason I have an initramfs is for the plymouth |
44 |
>>> splash screen (other systems aren't desktops) -- but from everything I |
45 |
>>> can see it's not too complicated otherwise. |
46 |
>> |
47 |
>> Yeah... it is not complicated to but Windows as well, or IBM os-390!!! |
48 |
>> |
49 |
>> You use a tool that hides the initramfs building, and you are amazed |
50 |
>> it is simple? |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Dracut isn't *hiding* anything from me, I just don't need anything |
53 |
> more complicated -- who said I'm amazed? |
54 |
> |
55 |
>> |
56 |
>> The files within the initramfs generation tool are compiled using |
57 |
>> different tool than portage, they are not updated when distribution is |
58 |
>> updated, and they are not even at same version within portage tree. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> Why does this matter? Are there some huge security vulnerabilities |
61 |
> I'm unaware of? |
62 |
>> |
63 |
>> It may be acceptable for you... but do not expect everyone will accept |
64 |
>> your setup. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> Don't mind me, I'm just looking for the logic. Feel free to explain it to me. |
67 |
|
68 |
What do you mean "Don't mind me"? |
69 |
|
70 |
I don't mind you... as long as you don't force me to do anything... |
71 |
|
72 |
>> |
73 |
>> Regards, |
74 |
>> Alon |
75 |
>> |
76 |
> |
77 |
> -- |
78 |
> Alecks Gates |
79 |
> |