On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Alon Bar-Lev <alo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Fabio Erculiani <lx...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Moreover, the lvm problem is caused by a very ancient and ill decision >> about doing what upstream tells you to avoid: have mdev in the >> initramfs and udev on the final pivot rooted system. This was just >> looking for troubles but the smarties at the time decided that they >> knew better... And now, tadam, the bug is served... >> People can use genkernel-next, which comes with _proper_ udev support >> (see --udev). > > I won't comment about the entire gnome monolithic windows like, vendor > controlled system that we cooperate with. > > But the above statement is way too much... there should be nothing > wrong in having mdev during boot. initramfs should be simple as > possible and busybox provides this functionality well. The problem is > in udev not in any other component, that probably expects now to run > first and have total control over the boot process. I hope eudev does > not suffer from this. > > If genkernel will start using udev instead of busybox, it will > probably be the last day of me use it.
Fellow developer, let me tell you one thing, go clone the git repo and see how --udev is implemented and realize that mdev is still supported as it was before. > > I am just waiting for the point in which you claim that systemd should > be run at initramfs, because of the dependency lock-in, so you have > almost the entire system within initramfs. While it may have several advantages, there is no pressing need in supporting systemd in the initramfs for now. > > Regards, > Alon > -- Fabio Erculiani
