Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?

[Dale]

Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote:
>> If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy.
> No you don't. You could use a boot partition. Or grub2.
>
>> So, worked for ages, then it breaks when people change where they put
>> things.  Answer is, don't change where you put things.  Then things
>> still work for most everyone, including me.  I'm not a programmer nor am
>> I a rocket scientist but even I can see that.  If I can see it, I have
>> no idea why a programmer can't other than being willingly blinded.  ;-)
> You have no idea why it's being deprecated because you STAUNCHLY
> REFUSE TO READ why so, even when it's blatantly being spelled out over
> and over again why it's being done that way.
>
> recap: many packages depending on udev keep putting stuff in their
> udev rules that depend on binaries in /usr. It's not udev's
> responsibility to fix or maintain these packages. Does it work for
> you? Ok. That doesn't mean it isn't broken. There's a couple of
> documents [1] [2] that spell out what /usr is supposed to be, and for
> many distros, it's _failing_ to meet those standards.
>
> [1] http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesystem-Hierarchy/html/usr.html
> [2] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY
>
> Again:
> /usr, according to what it's supposed to be, is deeply broken for a
> large number of distros. Even when it works - for you. / merging with
> /usr (or /, wherever the rest of the programs are supposed to be)
> actually fixes the breakage, because then udev or whatever programs in
> / can't be out of sync with the programs it depends on.
>
> The analogy here is like when people complained to Ted Tso that ext4
> was not as stable was ext3 (exhibiting the same corruption problems as
> seen in xfs). No, that's not true. ext3 just happened to have a quirky
> behavior that gave the illusion of stability (the writes still failed
> to reach the disk) _for programs that were written broken_. Come ext4,
> which actually behaves as the standard is supposed to, and people
> complain that ext4 is the broken one. It isn't.
>
> Hm, was that a knock from the ghost of Unix past?
>
>> Since there is a way to continue
>> with the old way, which has worked for decades,
> Yes there is one. An "init thingy" is just one of them and the means
> to automatically make one is already available to all distros. Another
> thing you could do is run an early mount script prior to running udev.
> --
> This email is:    [ ] actionable   [ ] fyi        [x] social
> Response needed:  [ ] yes          [x] up to you  [ ] no
> Time-sensitive:   [ ] immediate    [ ] soon       [x] none
>
>

I think Michael said it better but. . . I am against changing my system
from something that I KNOW FOR A FACT WORKS to adding one more point of
failure that I should NOT need.  Don't tell me my system is broken and
can't boot when I sit here and watch it boot all the way to a GUI
login.  I have watched it boot just fine for years, ever since I started
using Gentoo WITHOUT a init thingy I might add.  Other than the
occasional kernel issue, it boots just fine.  I'm not concerned about
some exotic or weird setup since I purposely AVOID that.  I use LVM but
not on anything that will affect booting up.  All that should be needed
for booting is on a regular partition. 

If udev, systemd or any other programs needs something to boot, it
should NOT be placed in /usr.  Again, I'm not a programmer but even I
know that.  If some programmer, not going to mention names, is not smart
enough to know that, then it is not my system or me that has a problem. 
Maybe that programmer has some of his brain on some partition that has
not yet been mounted.  lol  Maybe he/she should use a init thingy to fix
that.  ROFL

If this is so broken, why are the eudev people going to fix it?  They
have said on -dev that they will support booting a separate /usr without
a init thingy.  If eudev can do it, why not udev?  I think it is like
Michael said, they want everything their way and every one else can just
suck it up.  Well, I'm not planning to suck it up.  I'm just going to
use something else that apparently has some smarter programmers. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!