1 |
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> > I suppose that what I am about to say isn't really relevant, but it is |
4 |
> > unfortunate over the past year that people blamed udev specifically |
5 |
> > for this. It is true that it does things that don't work if /usr isn't |
6 |
> > mounted, but eudev does as well, since it is basically the same code. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Who else is there to blame? We are continually being told that a |
9 |
> separate /usr is "broken", as though this were some unfortunate act of |
10 |
> <insert your deity here>, much like an earthquake. This gets |
11 |
> patronising really quickly. (Please note, I'm NOT blaming you here. I |
12 |
> appreciate that you're as much victim as Dale or me or anyone else |
13 |
> round here.) |
14 |
|
15 |
It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction, now it |
16 |
has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer devote the |
17 |
increasing time needed to support what has now become an dge case. |
18 |
|
19 |
> No, this breaking of separate /usr was done by some specific project, |
20 |
> some specific person, even, in a supreme display of incompetence, |
21 |
> malice, or arrogance. How come this project and this person have |
22 |
> managed to maintain such a low profile? There seems to have been some |
23 |
> sort of conspiracy to do this breakage in secret, each member of the |
24 |
> coven pushing the plot until the damage was irrevocable. Who was it? |
25 |
|
26 |
So which was it, one specific person or a coven of conspirators? This is |
27 |
open source, secret conspiracies don't really work well. If this really |
28 |
was such a bad move, do you really think the likes of Greg K-H would not |
29 |
have stepped in? Or is he a conspirator too? |
30 |
|
31 |
> > If you read flameeyes' blog post, you will get a better idea of what |
32 |
> > the issue involves. It is the entire boot process and how to deal |
33 |
> > with which software is considered critical for booting. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> > There is no reason to rebuild your server; we aren't telling you you |
36 |
> > have to merge /usr into /. The only thing we are saying is that you |
37 |
> > will need to use an initramfs if you are going to keep them separate. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> "Only"? ONLY??? You say that as though creating an initramfs were a |
40 |
> trifle, trivial, and of no moment. |
41 |
|
42 |
For an Ubuntu user, maybe that's true? For someone that feels cmfortable |
43 |
compiling their own kernel and configuring the entire system by hand, |
44 |
running dracut or genkernel should not be too demanding. Even creating |
45 |
your own initramfs is hardly rocket science. |
46 |
|
47 |
> Ah yes, the deficiencies of the kernel. It can only mount one file |
48 |
> system when it starts. It's incapable of mounting LVM2 systems (even |
49 |
> though it contains LVM2 code). It's incapable of mounting encrypted |
50 |
> partitions (even though it contains encryption code), ...... So because |
51 |
> of these holes, a system must either be constrained in it's makeup (as |
52 |
> mine is) or use an ugly hack. It can (still) mount RAID partitions, I |
53 |
> suppose. |
54 |
|
55 |
That's plain wrong. The kernel doesn't not include LVM code, only the |
56 |
device mapper functions that LVM uses, It does include RAID code. |
57 |
|
58 |
> > I have a pretty simple setup, but I have been using an initramfs |
59 |
> > which I built some time ago with genkernel and I barely know it is |
60 |
> > there. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> Until, after some update, it reminds you of its presence by not booting |
63 |
> your machine. That's the sort of excitement I can do without. |
64 |
|
65 |
Do you have any examples of this actually happening? Not "I heard a bloke |
66 |
down the pub talking about a mate of a mate who broke his system with an |
67 |
initramfs" but actual documented examples of how this can occur in normal |
68 |
use. |
69 |
|
70 |
|
71 |
-- |
72 |
Neil Bothwick |
73 |
|
74 |
Become a gynaecologist, look up a friend today. |