1 |
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy. |
4 |
> No you don't. You could use a boot partition. Or grub2. |
5 |
|
6 |
I don't remember reading /boot as a suggested solution. Frankly, |
7 |
that's an interesting idea. |
8 |
|
9 |
And I'd completely forgotten about grub2. That actually sounds promising. |
10 |
|
11 |
> |
12 |
>> So, worked for ages, then it breaks when people change where they put |
13 |
>> things. Answer is, don't change where you put things. Then things |
14 |
>> still work for most everyone, including me. I'm not a programmer nor am |
15 |
>> I a rocket scientist but even I can see that. If I can see it, I have |
16 |
>> no idea why a programmer can't other than being willingly blinded. ;-) |
17 |
> |
18 |
> You have no idea why it's being deprecated because you STAUNCHLY |
19 |
> REFUSE TO READ why so, even when it's blatantly being spelled out over |
20 |
> and over again why it's being done that way. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> recap: many packages depending on udev keep putting stuff in their |
23 |
> udev rules that depend on binaries in /usr. It's not udev's |
24 |
> responsibility to fix or maintain these packages. |
25 |
|
26 |
Nobody ever argued that it was. |
27 |
|
28 |
The reason this argument is so heated on this list has its roots in an |
29 |
earlier discussion, going back about a year and a half ago. It started |
30 |
when systemd was brought up as a response to one problem or another a |
31 |
few times, and critiques and arguments against it were often met with |
32 |
what read like bad-faith arguments in dismissive tones. Elsewhere, |
33 |
systemd's architect met criticisms in a similarly dismissive fashion. |
34 |
This made some folks (myself included) wary of systemd and anything it |
35 |
controlled, simply because it seemed useless to try to participate in |
36 |
rational critique. |
37 |
|
38 |
Then udev announced it was going to merge into systemd's source tree |
39 |
for better developer interop. At that point, some of us feared |
40 |
(rightly, as it turned out) that the top-down, my-way-or-the-highway |
41 |
attitude from systemd would take over udev, and that the close |
42 |
proximity in the source tree would make it difficult for the udev |
43 |
component to exist independently and in a stable fashion. (Where 'in a |
44 |
stable fashion' means "doesn't become a moving target for anyone apart |
45 |
from systemd trying to interoperate with it.) I remember feeling like |
46 |
I'd just seen a train derail, and was watching a large, slow moving |
47 |
train wreck. |
48 |
|
49 |
Then came the declaration of "separate /usr is broken", much to the |
50 |
dismay of those of us for whom that configuration truly did work just |
51 |
fine. Yes, we understand that, in an overly complex system, |
52 |
dependencies can get mixed up and you need to resolve that somehow. |
53 |
(Personally, I think that any binary outside /usr that depends on |
54 |
binaries or data inside /usr is broken and should be fixed.) |
55 |
|
56 |
Then came the decision to move udev inside /usr, forcing the issue. |
57 |
Now, it'd been long understood that udev *itself* hadn't been broken. |
58 |
The explanation given as much as a year earlier was that udev couldn't |
59 |
control what *other* packages gave it for rules scripts. OK, that's |
60 |
not strictly udev's fault. That's the fault of packages being depended |
61 |
on at too early a stage in the boot process. And, perhaps, hotplug |
62 |
events for some devices _should_ be deferred until the proper |
63 |
resources for handling it are available. I can think of at least a few |
64 |
ways you could do that. And, yes, this was a problem systemd was |
65 |
facing, and wasn't finding a way out of. (Why? I still don't know. |
66 |
Maybe they didn't want to implement dependency declarations or demand |
67 |
that packages impement partial functionality to reduce initial |
68 |
dependencies.) |
69 |
|
70 |
Still, instead, the decision was made by the systemd/udev management |
71 |
to give udev the same _intrinsic_ dependency faults that systemd had, |
72 |
and udev, previously, hadn't. Previously, udev was a tool that you |
73 |
would use, and you would be expected to be wise while using it. Now, |
74 |
udev is a tool that's lost some of its power in order to force an |
75 |
environment more suitable for systemd. |
76 |
|
77 |
|
78 |
-- |
79 |
:wq |