| 1 |
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 04:42:23 PM Mike Edenfield wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 01:36:56 PM Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > But that's the thing: we (you and me) don't see the situation the |
| 5 |
> > > same |
| 6 |
> > > way. To me, the proposed changes are for the better. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > You are one of very few that feel this way. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> You are probably correct that he's one of the relatively few people (along |
| 11 |
> with the udev developer, and those few people for whom it will fix their |
| 12 |
> problems) who think these changes are a real improvement. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
If for those people using an initramfs solves their problems, then I'm not |
| 15 |
against it. And I don't think many others are either. |
| 16 |
But why are people forced to use an initramfs where it is not needed? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> I would estimate that the vast, vast, vast majority of users are those such |
| 19 |
> as myslelf, who have no opinion whatsoever, and either will not be affected |
| 20 |
> at all by these changes (because they don't separate / and /usr), or will |
| 21 |
> simply apply the proposed initramfs solution and move on. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
You also don't have /var (or /var/log) seperated? Or any of the other parts of |
| 24 |
the filesystem that might be required by udev-rules? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Then there are those relatively few people, such as the handful making up |
| 27 |
> the rest of this thread, who think that these changes are a horrible idea |
| 28 |
> and will have a severe deterimental affect on their systems. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Any added complexity is another thing that can go wrong. |
| 31 |
In the thread on gentoo-dev, I am trying to figure out 3 things: |
| 32 |
1) How are the Gentoo Developers planning on adding this new change? |
| 33 |
2) What are the options for not having to have an initramfs if the udev-rules |
| 34 |
used don't actually require /usr and co to be mounted. |
| 35 |
3) Get their input in a possible alternative (like fixing the, what I see, |
| 36 |
design-flaws of udev) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
On "1", I am actually quite pleased. The actual information I could find |
| 39 |
previously sounded a lot worse. I've just got a few more questions open based |
| 40 |
on their answers. Once I have the full picture, I'll post it back here. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
For "2", I've only just started. I'll also post back here on what my findings |
| 43 |
are. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
For "3", I've got some feedback on how udev currently handles things. These |
| 46 |
actually have given me a few other ways in which to try to "solve" the issue. |
| 47 |
I'll need to try to find out how udev actually handles the "retry" queue |
| 48 |
currently. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> Not that the relative "size" of the various sides in this debate is really |
| 51 |
> the issue, but despite the tone of this and the other thread, I don't think |
| 52 |
> there's really a huge, overwhelming outcry against these changes. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
I wonder how many are actually aware of these changes. But yes, I think plenty |
| 55 |
of people will not care and if the Gentoo-devs handle this correctly (which, |
| 56 |
so far, I think they are) those people won't even notice. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
But, there will always be some people who get bitten by this and my reasons |
| 59 |
for going with parts 1 and 2 is to see how to keep this group as small as |
| 60 |
possible. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
Joost |
Archives