1 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Just a few clarifications below. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> One thing this discussion is missing is any mention of BIOS / EFI. |
6 |
> Most of the discussion below seems most relevant to a legacy BIOS |
7 |
> installation. Many specialized Gentoo install docs, like mdadm+lvm, |
8 |
> don't really make mention of EFI, or other more recent developments. |
9 |
> Now that all the docs are on the wiki I'd strongly encourage anybody |
10 |
> with an interest to improve them. Many seasoned Gentoo users barely |
11 |
> reference the documentation these days and I think that is part of why |
12 |
> they've become a bit dated. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> A few of the topics below are somewhat controversial, particularly on |
15 |
> this list. I tried to stick to the facts and indicate where there is |
16 |
> a difference of opinion. I'd prefer not to rehash all the various |
17 |
> debates... |
18 |
> |
19 |
> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
20 |
> > On Sunday 17 May 2015 12:48:58 Nuno Magalhães wrote: |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> >> (Later i want to get rid of systemd-udev and use eudev instead.) |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > I use openrc, not systemd. It still works well and has less complication - and |
25 |
> > less typing! |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Most people using openrc are also using systemd-udev (and there is a |
28 |
> good chance you do too). The latter was previously named udev and |
29 |
> long predates what most people call systemd. Eudev is a fork of udev, |
30 |
> which comes from after it came under the systemd umbrella, but before |
31 |
> the name change and a number of changes that were controversial. I |
32 |
> believe they try to incorporate many of the patches from systemd-udev |
33 |
> but some default behaviors are different. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> In any case, I just wanted to clarify that systemd-udev is not the |
36 |
> "systemd" you're probably thinking of. In particular, it doesn't |
37 |
> replace openrc or sysvinit. Systemd-udev largely is concerned with |
38 |
> populating /dev, and running initialization of hardware when it is |
39 |
> detected, based on a configurable set of rules. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> > |
42 |
> >> I intend to use XFS for /. Incidentally, if i later decide to "fork |
43 |
> >> out" /usr (or some other subdirectory) into it's own LV, is it "just" |
44 |
> >> a mater of copying its contents and updating /etc/fstab? Or should i |
45 |
> >> just do it now and expand the LVs if later required (especially if i |
46 |
> >> want to use different filesystems)? |
47 |
> > |
48 |
> > I can't help you with XFS. I know that ext4 in an LV in a VG in a PV on RAID1 |
49 |
> > works reliably, even though it does look complex when I write it like that. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> As far as LVM and xfs themselves go, you can do what you propose. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> However, Gentoo QA policy is that it is expected that /usr is mounted |
54 |
> early in boot. Various tools can break if it is not. Typically this |
55 |
> is the responsibility of an initramfs, however you can also use |
56 |
> scripts that run early during initialization from / which mount it. |
57 |
> If you just stick /usr in fstab and rely on openrc to mount it for you |
58 |
> normally, you may or may not have problems. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> It has been a long time since I actually used such a system in this |
61 |
> manner with Gentoo, but the last I saw discussion on it most who used |
62 |
> this configuration found it usually worked fine, unless you were using |
63 |
> something like a bluetooth keyboard or other key system component that |
64 |
> required a lot of userspace tooling to make work. However, as a |
65 |
> matter of policy you're on your own if you choose not to mount /usr |
66 |
> early during boot in some way. |
67 |
> |
68 |
> The reason it is not supported is that with the rise of things like |
69 |
> bluetooth the list of dependencies possibly required during early boot |
70 |
> has grown to the point where we'd end up not even having a /usr before |
71 |
> long. My sense is that for the most part most maintainers tend to |
72 |
> respect the traditional definition of / and /usr on Gentoo, and thus |
73 |
> you can often get away with doing things the traditional way. |
74 |
> However, the policy does allow us to end debates over things like udev |
75 |
> rules invoking some userspace tool in /usr and such. Some packages |
76 |
> more strongly depend on /usr being installed in early boot, and there |
77 |
> have been suggestions (but nothing concrete) that Gentoo consider |
78 |
> supporting the /usr-move that other distros have embraced (and that |
79 |
> would basically get rid of /lib, /bin, and so on). |
80 |
> |
81 |
> > |
82 |
> > Again, legacy grub here. But if you're using an initramfs, from what I've seen |
83 |
> > you don't need to specify metadata 0.90. |
84 |
> |
85 |
> I used to use grub legacy and kernel RAID auto-assembly. As a result |
86 |
> I was using metadata 0.90. |
87 |
> |
88 |
> I found this configuration problematic on rare occasions. There is a |
89 |
> reason that mdadm changed the metadata, and why most distros don't do |
90 |
> it this way. (more below) |
91 |
> |
92 |
> > |
93 |
> > Damn. I've just checked and something has renamed my /dev/md7 to |
94 |
> > /dev/md127. Again. It's just too bad. I shall have to stop it when I get a |
95 |
> > quiet moment and reassemble it into /dev/md7. Actually, I know what caused |
96 |
> > it but I didn't notice at the time. |
97 |
> |
98 |
> And this was one of the configuration problems I ran into on rare |
99 |
> occasion. Often booting from a rescue CD or such caused something |
100 |
> like this to happen. |
101 |
> |
102 |
> One of the advantages of using an initramfs is that they can be a lot |
103 |
> smarter about finding your partitions. You can identify them by UUID |
104 |
> or label, and not care as much if mdadm or the kernel renames your |
105 |
> device nodes. |
106 |
> |
107 |
> I'd seriously take a look at dracut, though I don't know if it works |
108 |
> with eudev. It certainly should support openrc, and I know that it |
109 |
> did back when I was running openrc. It can also mount /usr for you, |
110 |
> and in fact it should automatically do so. It also respects your |
111 |
> fstab - it uses its internal logic and the kernel boot line to |
112 |
> initially find filesystems, but then it reads your /etc/fstab and |
113 |
> remounts everything as you define it there just in case something has |
114 |
> changed since the last time you built the initramfs/etc. You can |
115 |
> define your own modules for it which makes it reasonably easy to get |
116 |
> it to do anything at all during early boot, and it doesn't require |
117 |
> anything to be built static (it finds required shared objects anywhere |
118 |
> on the filesystem and includes them in the initramfs). It can also |
119 |
> give you a rescue shell if something goes wrong, and depending on your |
120 |
> settings you can make that rescue shell reasonably well-featured |
121 |
> (using either dash or bash as you prefer inside, and I imagine you |
122 |
> could tell it to install the other on the side). A while ago I needed |
123 |
> to run some btrfs tools that aren't in dracut by default and it was |
124 |
> trivial to tell dracut to include them, and I forced a shell on next |
125 |
> boot which gave me the latest tools and kernel without having to build |
126 |
> a rescue CD with them, and a bash shell to run them from. |
127 |
> |
128 |
> It certainly isn't necessary to use an initramfs to use Gentoo, and I |
129 |
> used to be among the more minimalist crowd that avoided them. |
130 |
> However, once I took the time to examine dracut it went from being a |
131 |
> blob that looked unnecessary to a tool that is often useful. |
132 |
|
133 |
Last time I tried to use dracut with openrc, it failed, I can't remember |
134 |
exactly what happened, I think udev did hang, but its been a while since |
135 |
this happened. Dracut uses systemd internally, so maybe this is part of |
136 |
the problem. |
137 |
|
138 |
-- |
139 |
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: |
140 |
How do |
141 |
you spend it? |
142 |
|
143 |
John Covici |
144 |
covici@××××××××××.com |