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 > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-14-2012, 11:29 PM
David Leverton
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On 14 March 2012 23:44, Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Oh, and somehow "consensus" will work? *No, sorry, it will not.

No, logical analysis will, as I said in the rest of my post which you
conveniently ignored - either we conclude with evidence that there are
no issues, which should settle the matter for reasonable people, or we
discover that there are, in which case they have to be dealt with one
way or another. I really don't see how anyone can object to that,
unless they're worried they won't like the result....

> How about the basic FACT that today, such systems do not work

This is debatable at best. You can keep screaming "but bluetooth
won't work!" until you're blue in the face, but that's not relevant at
all to people who don't use bluetooth.

> and are not supported by a wide range of packages we support today.

Isn't such support being removed by the same people who keep arguing
that it's already not supported? That's like cutting half your
employees' pay, and then insisting that you have to choice but to cut
the other half's pay as well, in order to be fair.

> Yes, some people are "lucky" in that their systems don't have those
> packages, but others are not. *The simple "I use a bluetooth keyboard"
> is one such example.

People who only have a bluetooth keyboard can set their systems up in
such a way that it works, just like how people who have / on lvm can
set their systems up in such a way that that works. That's not in
itself a reason to force it on everyone.

> It is strange to watch people somehow think that if they complain
> enough, or feel strongly enough, something is going to change here to
> make this basic fact go away.

If by "the basic fact" you mean that plenty of people are quite happy
doing what's worked just fine for years, then yes.
 
Old 03-14-2012, 11:36 PM
David Leverton
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On 14 March 2012 23:47, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing.

Clearly something must have changed in udev 181 to make
/usr-without-initramfs not work anymore, and someone must have done
something to make that change happen, unless udev has aquired the
ability to evolve by itself.
 
Old 03-14-2012, 11:45 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On 03/14/2012 05:36 PM, David Leverton wrote:
> On 14 March 2012 23:47, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing.
>
> Clearly something must have changed in udev 181 to make
> /usr-without-initramfs not work anymore, and someone must have done
> something to make that change happen, unless udev has aquired the
> ability to evolve by itself.

You're pointing your finger at udev, but the udev change is just a
symptom of a more general shift away from supporting the "/ is a
self-contained boot disk that is independent of /usr" use case.
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 03-14-2012, 11:49 PM
David Leverton
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On 15 March 2012 00:45, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> You're pointing your finger at udev, but the udev change is just a
> symptom of a more general shift away from supporting the "/ is a
> self-contained boot disk that is independent of /usr" use case.

OK, so there are multiple instances of people not not doing anything
rather than just one. I think that supports my point more than it
refutes it.
 
Old 03-14-2012, 11:58 PM
Richard Yao
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On 03/14/12 20:36, David Leverton wrote:
> On 14 March 2012 23:47, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing.
>
> Clearly something must have changed in udev 181 to make
> /usr-without-initramfs not work anymore, and someone must have done
> something to make that change happen, unless udev has aquired the
> ability to evolve by itself.
>

I suggest that you file a bug report regarding this for the Gentoo udev
maintainer.
 
Old 03-15-2012, 12:06 AM
Zac Medico
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On 03/14/2012 05:58 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 03/14/12 20:36, David Leverton wrote:
>> On 14 March 2012 23:47, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing.
>>
>> Clearly something must have changed in udev 181 to make
>> /usr-without-initramfs not work anymore, and someone must have done
>> something to make that change happen, unless udev has aquired the
>> ability to evolve by itself.
>>
>
> I suggest that you file a bug report regarding this for the Gentoo udev
> maintainer.

RESOLVED:UPSTREAM
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 03-15-2012, 12:07 AM
Rich Freeman
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@cs.stonybrook.edu> wrote:
>
> I proposed a way that this could work with no effort on the part of the
> Gentoo developers in one of my earlier emails:
>

Then go ahead and make it happen. If as you say no dev participation
is needed there is nothing Gentoo needs to do to support this.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> We aren't Debian here people, we don't support "everything"
>
> If you want to support both, great, feel free to step up and do the
> work.
>

Gentoo is about choice, but it is largely about the choices that
people are willing to step up and maintain.

A few months ago there was a big thread and lots of devs said that
systemd isn't supported on Gentoo. Some devs stepped up and decided
to maintain it and now I'd say systemd is about as supported on Gentoo
as Prefix, FreeBSD, Sparc, or MIPS. That didn't happen because of
mailing list persuasion - it happened because a few people interested
in making it happen wrote a bunch of ebuilds. How do systemd units
end up in various packages? The people interested in seeing them
write good-quality patches and submit bugs, or otherwise work with the
maintainers to commit them.

For those who don't like the current direction, by all means create an
overlay called udev-root, mdev-boot, noinitramfs, or whatever. You
don't need anybody's permission to do it - just go on github and make
it happen. Write some good code. There are several devs here who
might even help you out with it, and nobody here is going to object to
packages going into the main tree as long as they're maintained in
accordance with Gentoo QA. Create some USE flags where you need
tie-ins to other system packages and as long as everything behaves
nicely and patches are good and maintained, I'm sure the package
maintainers will accept them.

Gentoo already gives its users a lot of choice, but it can only offer
the choices that people are willing to maintain. Right now I see a
lot of complaining and not a lot of maintaining. When I see a package
lastrited I don't moan about it - I either sigh or sign up to maintain
it. By all means make suggestions to improve the transition or write
docs, but simply posting on this list isn't likely to change the
direction the linux winds are blowing. The forces involved are much
larger than Gentoo.

Rich
 
Old 03-15-2012, 12:37 AM
Zac Medico
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On 03/14/2012 06:07 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> For those who don't like the current direction, by all means create an
> overlay called udev-root, mdev-boot, noinitramfs, or whatever.

The simplest alternative to an initramfs that I can think of would be an
init wrapper like the one that I suggested a while back [1].

[1]
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729fe8.xml
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 03-15-2012, 12:44 AM
Richard Yao
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On 03/14/12 21:07, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@cs.stonybrook.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I proposed a way that this could work with no effort on the part of the
>> Gentoo developers in one of my earlier emails:
>>
>
> Then go ahead and make it happen. If as you say no dev participation
> is needed there is nothing Gentoo needs to do to support this.

That proposal was something that I had intended to abstract ebuild
maintainers such as myself out of the picture. I am do not have a
separate /usr filesystem, yet as an ebuild maintainer, I receive bug
reports from those that do.

If people want to guarentee that they can boot without an initramfs,
they can implement my suggestion. If they don't, then it is no problem
for me. I have already fixed things for the separate /usr crowd in my
ebuilds.
 
Old 03-15-2012, 12:49 AM
Richard Yao
 
Default Let's redesign the entire filesystem!

On 03/14/12 21:06, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 05:58 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 03/14/12 20:36, David Leverton wrote:
>>> On 14 March 2012 23:47, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> It's more about what we're _not_ doing that what we're doing.
>>>
>>> Clearly something must have changed in udev 181 to make
>>> /usr-without-initramfs not work anymore, and someone must have done
>>> something to make that change happen, unless udev has aquired the
>>> ability to evolve by itself.
>>>
>>
>> I suggest that you file a bug report regarding this for the Gentoo udev
>> maintainer.
>
> RESOLVED:UPSTREAM

Lets permit the udev maintainer to do that.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:10 PM.

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