| 1 |
On 19/08/2013 15:23, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2013-08-19 6:04 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> It's not that separate /usr is broken - it's not. |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> The issue is a separate /usr without an initramfs. And the issue ONLY |
| 6 |
>> occurs at early-boot time. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> And so, if this is the way it goes, this is the way it goes. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> As long as I can keep using eudev - even *if* it requires an initramfs |
| 11 |
> for a separate /usr (as long as it doesn't require one if you don't have |
| 12 |
> a separate /usr)... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Can anyone answer *that* question please? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Honestly, what you want is a full-fledged udev fork from just before |
| 19 |
systemd tainted it, and fully maintained to go in the direction we |
| 20 |
understood "classic" udev to be going. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
eudev and even mdev are a step in the right direction, but I believe |
| 23 |
they don't have enough muscle behind them, i.e. they end up cherry |
| 24 |
picking useful bits out of udev-subsumed-into-systemd. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
udev needs the same quality of maintainership now in a fork that it used |
| 27 |
to have. And it's probably only a matter of time before someone with |
| 28 |
those resources gets fed up with the current scene and does exactly that. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
For me, I'm not opposed to merging /usr. I'm not opposed to other people |
| 31 |
using systemd, I am opposed to *me* using it. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
For your other question, you don't need an initramfs if your /usr is not |
| 35 |
split off and drivers for your fs on / and chipset are compiled in. That |
| 36 |
will stay true for ages to come (until some joker starts shipping kernel |
| 37 |
drivers in /var....) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 41 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives