Re: [gentoo-user] udev + /usr

[William Kenworthy]

On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 14:55 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote:
> > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Joost Roeleveld<joost@××××××××.org>
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 06:33:01 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer<grimlog@×××.de>
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
...
>
> Who actually speaks on the list. As far as we know, maybe the only
> Gentoo users disagreeing with the changes are the ones saying so on
> the list. We don't know.
>
...


ok, as one of the silent ones on this topic so far, I'll chime in.

Dont assume that the silent majority are in favour - they just might be
on the other side.  Perhaps others who disagree can say "me too" in
order to support Dale who has been carrying the argument very well.

From my point of view, its looking like I will have to redesign a number
of systems to take this into a/c, expose those systems to a proven
higher risk of failure* all because of some corner cases that dont apply
to me or the majority and perhaps the biggest point is that I have no
choice in the matter, and possibly no choice about when it will happen.

I wonder if going back to a static /dev is still possible.  Server
hardware doesnt change much once in service so its a once only hit to
set it up.

I dont mind that you want to use systemd and an initramfs - but I dont,
and I dont want to be forced to go along with you.

BillK

* my biggest failure when doing sys admin tasks at a workplace involved
initrd's - now I do not use them on gentoo (I dont have a choice on the
ubuntu systems), and guess what ... Ive never had an initrd failure on
gentoo since :)  I know initramfs isnt initrd, but the exposure is the
same.