Re: [gentoo-user] udev + /usr

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:42:00 -0400
Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote:
> > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie<acm@×××.de>
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi, everybody.
> >>>
> >>> Hope nobody minds me starting a new thread with an accurate name.
> >>>
> >>> Which version of udev is it that has this nauseating feature of
> >>> needing /usr loaded to boot?
> >>>
> >>> Somewhere in that version's source will be several (or lots of)
> >>> "/usr". Just how difficult is it going to be to replace
> >>> "/usr/bin" with "/bin" throughout the source?
> >>>
> >>> udev is part of the kernel.  How come the kernel hackers aren't
> >>> up in arms about this as much as we are?  Or are they, maybe?  In
> >>> which case, maybe the kernel people would welcome an option to
> >>> disrequire the early mounting of /usr as much as we would.
> >>>
> >>> Anyhow, I'd like to take a peek at the source code which does
> >>> this evil thing.  Would somebody please tell me which version of
> >>> udev is involved.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>
> >> (This would be my only post in this new thread: I think I have
> >> made my point of view clear in the other thread).
> >>
> >> I have seen a lot of disinformation going on in the other threads
> >> (like some people suggesting that /var would not be able to be on
> >> its own partition at some point in the future). Just before
> >> everyone start to wildy conjecture, please take a look at this:
> >>
> >> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
> >>
> >> Also, a look at this thread is maybe justified:
> >>
> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/1728/
> >>
> >> Both things are in the context of systemd, but it's related to the
> >> discussion at hand. I know not everybody wants to use systemd, and
> >> think Lennart and Kay are the root of all that is wrong and evil on
> >> the world, but I will recommend everyone interested in the reasons
> >> of the push for a recommended initramfs to take a look at the page
> >> in fd.org, and the thread in the systemd mailing list. Even if you
> >> don't agree with the reasoning, it is worth to take a look at it.
> >>
> >> As for me, I would say one last time my POV: Linux strives to be
> >> much more than Unix, and that means do things differently. It will
> >> always be capable of do anything that Unix does, and most of the
> >> time it will do it better. But that doesn't (necessarily) means
> >> that it will do it in the same way.
> >>
> >> And many of us don't take "but my config/setup/partition works
> >> now" as a valid argument to restrain progress.
> >>
> >> Change happens.
> >>
> >> Regards everyone.
> >
> > You say it was disinformation about /var.  Care to explain why me
> > and one other person read the same thing?  It was mentioned on
> > -dev.  I was pretty sure it was and then another person posted they
> > read the same.  So, I'm almost certain it was said at this point.
> >  Surely we can't both be wrong.

The issue is not /var, it is /var/run.
This dir can be needed early in the boot process, but cannot be mounted
before /var is mounted. The solution is /run.

$DEITY help us when people start finding needed crap in /var/lib and
other such insanities.


-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com