FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-10-2008, 04:13 PM
David Zeuthen
 
Default Linux is not about choice

On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 11:07 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> How can it work 'out of the box' when the person who knows which of many
> possible devices is which is separated from the kernel and device driver
> by a hidden level of indirection introduced between versions?

By getting things properly integrated with the kernel and udev. Yes,
there's a lot of drivers that needs fixing; mostly because the authors
of said drivers thought it was "good enough" to require all sort of
weird kernel module parameters and have people edit things
like /etc/modprobe.conf and whatnot.

David


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-10-2008, 04:16 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default Linux is not about choice

David Zeuthen (david@fubar.dk) said:
> I agree it's confusing / misleading that udev stores it's rules in /etc.
> They are, as you point out, really just program data (at least 99% of
> them). I'll talk to upstream about moving the bulk to /lib[64]/udev
> instead.

Just /lib, please. I can't imagine why they'd need separate /lib | /lib64
rules (and it already uses /lib/udev...)

(Red bikeshed, dammit!)

Bill

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-10-2008, 04:18 PM
David Zeuthen
 
Default Linux is not about choice

On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 11:20 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 11:54 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 10:40 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> >>> We are badly in need of system-config-udev. I spent several hours
> >>> understanding udev adn building rules for my sound cards and tv cards.
> >>> I hadn't done a yum update on my F7 box for weeks/months (lazyness)
> >>> did one this week, and it apperently just blew away my custom udev
> >>> config
> >> Hell no. We are in badly need of this crap just working out of the box.
> >> Throwing configuration / options at the problem will only make it worse.
> >> Trying to explain this to people is apparently impossible since people
> >> keep proposing stupid configuration tools with "unbreak my system"
> >> options.
> >
> > There's the bad idea that everything under /etc/ is configurable, but in
> > reality these rules are "program data" and ideally should go into /share
> > if that existed (which would avoid people thinking they're meant to
> > touch that stuff, hopefully).
>
> I'm having trouble parsing that statement. Are you saying that people
> shouldn't be able to edit their own /etc/xxx files as documented by the
> upstream programs or that the distribution should move the parts that it
> modifies with its internal tools elsewhere?

Lots of files under /etc are not marked as %config or %config(noreplace)
and they are not really configuration files. It's a problem because
novice users just assume they can and should edit such files and then
they get confused when said file is overwritten on a package upgrade.

Does that make more sense?

David


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-10-2008, 04:20 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Linux is not about choice

Nils Philippsen wrote:

On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 11:54 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:

On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 10:40 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:

We are badly in need of system-config-udev. I spent several hours
understanding udev adn building rules for my sound cards and tv cards.
I hadn't done a yum update on my F7 box for weeks/months (lazyness)
did one this week, and it apperently just blew away my custom udev
config

Hell no. We are in badly need of this crap just working out of the box.
Throwing configuration / options at the problem will only make it worse.
Trying to explain this to people is apparently impossible since people
keep proposing stupid configuration tools with "unbreak my system"
options.


There's the bad idea that everything under /etc/ is configurable, but in
reality these rules are "program data" and ideally should go into /share
if that existed (which would avoid people thinking they're meant to
touch that stuff, hopefully).


I'm having trouble parsing that statement. Are you saying that people
shouldn't be able to edit their own /etc/xxx files as documented by the
upstream programs or that the distribution should move the parts that it
modifies with its internal tools elsewhere?


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-10-2008, 04:31 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Linux is not about choice

David Zeuthen wrote:

On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 11:00 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
But the old names were predictable; the new ones aren't - when I move a
disk to a new controller/drive position, I know about it.


Uhm, no. You were just relying on a) limitations in the Linux kernel to
probe devices in a sequential fashion (see big-iron boxes with tens of
thousands of disks why this won't work); and b) the order of your
controllers on the PCI bus. Trying to argue it was "predictable" when it
was a "coincidence" is an interesting spin on reality. It's also wrong;
there's a reason that RHL and Fedora been using LABEL= for ages.


OK, that's at least partly right but you forgot to tell me what to call
the device when creating the label for filesystems that support it - or
what name to use for access to the raw device for operations like image
copies and addition/removal from raid arrays. The underlying problem
can't be solved at the filesystem layer.


What I actually would argue is that a distribution making such changes
should supply tools to migrate configurations based on old conventions
to the new ones. Maybe Fedora doesn't have users with hundreds of
machines and data that needs to span years of operation, but a unix-like
system should be designed to make that practical.


No, Fedora is about being on the bleeding edge and creating a system
where you don't *need* to migrate configuration files because the files
will be correct if they are using stable identifiers for devices.


I haven't found that to be the case. And I don't see any reason for
today's experimental change to end up being the one that sticks.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-10-2008, 04:34 PM
David Zeuthen
 
Default Linux is not about choice

On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 11:31 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> OK, that's at least partly right but you forgot to tell me what to call
> the device when creating the label for filesystems that support it - or
> what name to use for access to the raw device for operations like image
> copies and addition/removal from raid arrays. The underlying problem
> can't be solved at the filesystem layer.

Uhm. Did you *even* look at /dev/disk? There's by-path, by-uuid,
by-label and so forth. Heck, SUSE/Ubuntu ships udev rules for making the
md and dm devices use persistent naming too. Maybe if the distros were
better at working together at the plumbing layer (another rant of
mine)), this would be all standardized. Eventually it will all be
standardized.

> > No, Fedora is about being on the bleeding edge and creating a system
> > where you don't *need* to migrate configuration files because the files
> > will be correct if they are using stable identifiers for devices.
>
> I haven't found that to be the case. And I don't see any reason for
> today's experimental change to end up being the one that sticks.

There's nothing experimental about the path modern Linux is going in
wrt. to device naming. If you had bothered you will fine that more and
more device classes, including the infamous video4linux camp, is moving
to persistent device names. It's true, however, that Fedora is
super-reluctant on taking advantage of what happens upstream and keep
using pre-2000 technology. That's, very slowly, changing though.

David


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-10-2008, 05:20 PM
Jarod Wilson
 
Default Linux is not about choice

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Les Mikesell wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:31:56 +0100
>> Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Why not? One could imagine that somebody steps up to package the stuff
>>> needed by the old firewire stack? I don't know that issue very well,
>>> but I can imagine people wanting to fix things in fedora if they are
>>> annoying them.
>>
>>
>> Also, there is a /huge/ difference between "I can package this!" and "I
>> can be responsible for all the bug reports regarding this, and help to
>> transition folks using this to that, and help improve that along the
>> way."
>
> This is the philosophical issue - but it applies whether you support
> backwards compatiblity or not. In the now diverged firewire juju thread
> there is a comment:
>
> "Awesome, we definitely need more help. Neither krh nor I is able to
> spend quite as much time on juju as we'd like right now..."
>
> Of course "stuff happens" and things aren't ever going to be perfect,
> but why does a fundamental change go in at the device driver level
> without providing a way to revert to the previous version unless there
> is at least some expectation of having the resources to fix the new
> problems that will almost certainly show up?

Priorities change, unexpected problems crop up, things take much longer than
anyone anticipated, etc.

Also, note that a lot of the remaining current issues *might* be resolved by
some forthcoming juju firewire patches from the linux1394 git tree, which I'm
going to try to get into rawhide this afternoon... David Moore did a lot of
excellent work over the holiday break while I was busy not paying much
attention...

- --
Jarod Wilson
jwilson@redhat.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHhmIEtO+bni+75QMRAjl2AJ9M8GFOcZ7fTn9d2RmSVK ysKRrZAQCgnCPC
vMvYlg4XRI/WmnSeoieZw48=
=2gX1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-10-2008, 05:28 PM
Hans de Goede
 
Default Linux is not about choice

Hi All,

As the one who has started this thread:

Can we pretty pretty please stop the flamefest and move on to something more
productive. I know I have, I'm currently working together with the juju
developers to fix my issues, so that in the end we will have only one stack,
and one that works well.


I tried to ask a serious question in the top level post, and tried to formulate
it in a non inflaming way, well guess I failed there


Regards,

Hans

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-10-2008, 05:45 PM
Chris Adams
 
Default Linux is not about choice

Once upon a time, David Zeuthen <david@fubar.dk> said:
> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 10:40 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> > We are badly in need of system-config-udev. I spent several hours
> > understanding udev adn building rules for my sound cards and tv cards.
> > I hadn't done a yum update on my F7 box for weeks/months (lazyness)
> > did one this week, and it apperently just blew away my custom udev
> > config
>
> Hell no. We are in badly need of this crap just working out of the box.

And how do you know automatically that one of my USB-to-RS232 adapters
is my UPS (should be /dev/ups), one is my GPS (/dev/gps0), and one is a
cell phone (/dev/modem)?
--
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-10-2008, 05:48 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Linux is not about choice

David Zeuthen wrote:


There's the bad idea that everything under /etc/ is configurable, but in
reality these rules are "program data" and ideally should go into /share
if that existed (which would avoid people thinking they're meant to
touch that stuff, hopefully).
I'm having trouble parsing that statement. Are you saying that people
shouldn't be able to edit their own /etc/xxx files as documented by the
upstream programs or that the distribution should move the parts that it
modifies with its internal tools elsewhere?


Lots of files under /etc are not marked as %config or %config(noreplace)
and they are not really configuration files. It's a problem because
novice users just assume they can and should edit such files and then
they get confused when said file is overwritten on a package upgrade.

Does that make more sense?


It doesn't disambiguate the situation unless you are saying that local
administrators should not touch any files. How does a (novice or not)
user know which files belong to him but are delivered as working
defaults and which will be clobbered by subsequent updates? I thought
most of the point of splattering stuff under /etc/sysconfig was to have
a place to put distribution-tool managed bits without too much impact on
standard, documented config files as they would work in other distributions.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:40 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org