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