Hi, On Monday, 12. September 2011 10:40:02 Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > The 09/09/11, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: > > The question arose, when Canek mentioned bluetoothd, that udev seems to > > need in some cases. > > This is wrong. > udev on its own does not require extra tools from /usr. > Though, the rules used by udev do use software in /usr. It's NOT a udev > fault _at all_.
Well, this is details. Where's the diffference from user-point-of-view, whether it's udev itself or some scripts executed by udev? And I tend to disagree, with the not udev's fault part. udev treats all exit-codes from scripts as if the device were not present. This includes errors of all kinds. How is this supposed to work at all? > So, what's the good way to fix all that mess? Certainly not moving most > of software to /. Fortunately, we can expect /usr to be mounted before > udev starts via the initramfs. That's *your* opinion. Most people on this list disagree. > It does NOT mean everybody will require a initramfs. It means people > WANTING a seperate /usr will need a initramfs. > The good thing is that a lot of tools now in / will be granted back to > /usr. Let's clean up /. Also, it's a _good_ news for admins expecting to > maintain systems with a shared /usr (e.g. over the network). Since when is a mandatory initramfs a good thing for admins? Care to explain? Regards, Michael
