On Thursday 15 Sep 2011 16:13:26 Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: > On Thursday, 15. September 2011 16:48:45 Joost Roeleveld wrote: > > I agree he is wrong about the solution as well. > > > > I have actually just posted my idea to the gentoo-dev list to see how the > > developers actually feel about possible splitting udev into 2 parts. > > I've read it there. Thanks for doing this.
Thanks Joost for posting in the dev list and for explaining your proposed approach there. I've just read your thread in the dev list: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/72969 Zac's response helped me understand better what the Gentoo devs have been suggesting here: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_020fa80d72c84c5b587b90d8001264ef.xml and it does make sense - their version of initramfs-'lite'. From what I understand: 1. The minimal initramfs will only need to be built once (and rarely rebuilt thereafter). This removes one of my fears and it was a main objection for me - I would hate to have to rebuild initramfs every time I roll a new kernel, or libs and what not of fs happen to be udpated, etc. 2. If initramfs fails, then Zac says it will drop you into a minimal shell, so we should still be able to recover/troubleshoot/reboot from there. The only drawback is the 2 minutes it will take a user the first time this change is introduced to build the initramfs and change the kernel line in grub.conf. I am warming up to this proposal because it seems to me that it will end up being less painful that I originally thought. However, I still see it as a workaround to a more elegant solution, which as Joost and others suggest would involve separating udev's probing for devices with the rules running of scripts for them. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
