[gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes

[Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)]

On 2013-04-01, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/01/2013 03:26 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
>> You know that both udev and eudev have exactly the same issue with
>> separate /usr right?
>> The problem there isn't in the udev code, but it has to do with what is
>> happening in rules that other packages install.
>
> As I recall, the problem is where the ebuild choses to install the code.
> Putting the udev code under /usr forces the issue on systems where it
> would otherwise not be an issue.
>
> Putting the udev code under / avoids that issue, but opens up the system
> to the "silently fail" thing upstream liked to use as the basis of
> "separate /usr is broken"
>
> So, there are three conceivable configurations (initramfs notwithstanding):
>
> 1. With systems which don't require /usr binaries before /usr would be
> mounted, separate /usr is not a problem.
>
> 2. With systems which require /usr binaries for some features before
> /usr would be mounted, those features will silently fail.
>
> 3. With systems which require /usr binaries to mount /usr, all hell
> breaks loose.
>
> Putting the udev code under /usr moves all udev systems from group 2
> into group 3. In a sense, this fixes those systems because the admin is
> forced to address the silent failures he was previously unaware of. It
> also means pissing off a bunch of people who had features silently
> failing...but they probably didn't know or care about those features in
> the first place.
>
> It also moves all systems from group 1 into group 3...which is simply wro=
> ng.
>
> So long as eudev keeps its install path at / instead of /usr, admins in
> group 1 will probably be perfectly happy.

I'd guess nothing prevents the udev ebuild from doing so, too.


-- 
Nuno Silva (aka njsg)
http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/