Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Mick]

On Tuesday 31 May 2011 21:02:46 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 21:27 on Tuesday 31 May 2011, Mick did
> opine
>
> thusly:
> > On Tuesday 31 May 2011 08:07:24 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 13:56, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info>
wrote:
> > > >> Meh, I clicked 'Send' too fast.
> > > >>
> > > >> *My* suggested solution:
> > > >>
> > > >> Generate an initramfs containing udev. The hands-down easiest way is
> > > >> using genkernel's 'only create an initramfs' switch (sorry I forgot
> > > >> what exactly).
> > > >
> > > > good god no, please, anything but genkernel.
> > > >
> > > > That thing is an attempt to emulate binary distros which require an
> > > > initramfs to work properly (for any sane definition of "work") as the
> > > > person building the installer has no idea what hardware the user will
> > > > have. In Gentoo the user knows exactly what they have so there's no
> > > > need for a gigantic hardware-detecting workaround at boot time.
> > > >
> > > >> This needs to be done exactly once throughout the life of your VM.
> > > >>
> > > >> (To the herd of Gentoo graybeards, feel free to CMIIW)
> > > >
> > > > Or wait a few days for vapier's (posting under his other name of
> > > > spanky) sane advice to be implemented. His proposal is the sole voice
> > > > of reason in that bug thread....
> > >
> > > True. But I was having problem installing 2 servers on top of
> > > XenServer.
> > >
> > > So I cheated and ran 'genkernel initramfs' exactly once. At least I
> > > got myself a booting system. :-)
> > >
> > > When SpanKY's makedev gets stabilized and pushed to baselayout, I'll
> > > then happily ditch the genkernel cheat for my next VMs :-)
> >
> > Are you sure that manually creating /dev/console and /dev/null isn't all
> > that is required?  The rest of the devices will be created by udev when
> > it runs at boot time.
>
> null and console are the absolute irreducible minimum but there's one that
> can be dispensed with if the correct kernel option is enabled.
>
> We don't need everything that makedev traditionally provided (like every
> block device type known to man, floppys and ancient ptys) but the rest
> number about ~250 and are useful in single-user mode if udev fails to
> start.
>
> Considering that ~250 devices consumes a teeny-weeny bit of disk space and
> they are hidden from view normally, I say it's worth it leaving them in.
> Which is what vapier also says.

I see.  In my head it is as if we're going against the udev principle of 
populating required device nodes.  If udev does not start, isn't it time to 
head for the nearest LiveCD, or must we ensure that every breakage is fixable 
in single-user mode?
-- 
Regards,
Mick