| 1 |
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy. |
| 3 |
No you don't. You could use a boot partition. Or grub2. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> So, worked for ages, then it breaks when people change where they put |
| 6 |
> things. Answer is, don't change where you put things. Then things |
| 7 |
> still work for most everyone, including me. I'm not a programmer nor am |
| 8 |
> I a rocket scientist but even I can see that. If I can see it, I have |
| 9 |
> no idea why a programmer can't other than being willingly blinded. ;-) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
You have no idea why it's being deprecated because you STAUNCHLY |
| 12 |
REFUSE TO READ why so, even when it's blatantly being spelled out over |
| 13 |
and over again why it's being done that way. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
recap: many packages depending on udev keep putting stuff in their |
| 16 |
udev rules that depend on binaries in /usr. It's not udev's |
| 17 |
responsibility to fix or maintain these packages. Does it work for |
| 18 |
you? Ok. That doesn't mean it isn't broken. There's a couple of |
| 19 |
documents [1] [2] that spell out what /usr is supposed to be, and for |
| 20 |
many distros, it's _failing_ to meet those standards. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
[1] http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesystem-Hierarchy/html/usr.html |
| 23 |
[2] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Again: |
| 26 |
/usr, according to what it's supposed to be, is deeply broken for a |
| 27 |
large number of distros. Even when it works - for you. / merging with |
| 28 |
/usr (or /, wherever the rest of the programs are supposed to be) |
| 29 |
actually fixes the breakage, because then udev or whatever programs in |
| 30 |
/ can't be out of sync with the programs it depends on. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
The analogy here is like when people complained to Ted Tso that ext4 |
| 33 |
was not as stable was ext3 (exhibiting the same corruption problems as |
| 34 |
seen in xfs). No, that's not true. ext3 just happened to have a quirky |
| 35 |
behavior that gave the illusion of stability (the writes still failed |
| 36 |
to reach the disk) _for programs that were written broken_. Come ext4, |
| 37 |
which actually behaves as the standard is supposed to, and people |
| 38 |
complain that ext4 is the broken one. It isn't. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Hm, was that a knock from the ghost of Unix past? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> Since there is a way to continue |
| 43 |
> with the old way, which has worked for decades, |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Yes there is one. An "init thingy" is just one of them and the means |
| 46 |
to automatically make one is already available to all distros. Another |
| 47 |
thing you could do is run an early mount script prior to running udev. |
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [x] social |
| 50 |
Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no |
| 51 |
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none |
Archives