On Thursday, September 15, 2011 04:42:23 PM Mike Edenfield wrote: > On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 01:36:56 PM Dale wrote: > > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > > But that's the thing: we (you and me) don't see the situation the > > > same > > > way. To me, the proposed changes are for the better. > > > > You are one of very few that feel this way. > > You are probably correct that he's one of the relatively few people (along > with the udev developer, and those few people for whom it will fix their > problems) who think these changes are a real improvement.
If for those people using an initramfs solves their problems, then I'm not against it. And I don't think many others are either. But why are people forced to use an initramfs where it is not needed? > I would estimate that the vast, vast, vast majority of users are those such > as myslelf, who have no opinion whatsoever, and either will not be affected > at all by these changes (because they don't separate / and /usr), or will > simply apply the proposed initramfs solution and move on. You also don't have /var (or /var/log) seperated? Or any of the other parts of the filesystem that might be required by udev-rules? > Then there are those relatively few people, such as the handful making up > the rest of this thread, who think that these changes are a horrible idea > and will have a severe deterimental affect on their systems. Any added complexity is another thing that can go wrong. In the thread on gentoo-dev, I am trying to figure out 3 things: 1) How are the Gentoo Developers planning on adding this new change? 2) What are the options for not having to have an initramfs if the udev-rules used don't actually require /usr and co to be mounted. 3) Get their input in a possible alternative (like fixing the, what I see, design-flaws of udev) On "1", I am actually quite pleased. The actual information I could find previously sounded a lot worse. I've just got a few more questions open based on their answers. Once I have the full picture, I'll post it back here. For "2", I've only just started. I'll also post back here on what my findings are. For "3", I've got some feedback on how udev currently handles things. These actually have given me a few other ways in which to try to "solve" the issue. I'll need to try to find out how udev actually handles the "retry" queue currently. > Not that the relative "size" of the various sides in this debate is really > the issue, but despite the tone of this and the other thread, I don't think > there's really a huge, overwhelming outcry against these changes. I wonder how many are actually aware of these changes. But yes, I think plenty of people will not care and if the Gentoo-devs handle this correctly (which, so far, I think they are) those people won't even notice. But, there will always be some people who get bitten by this and my reasons for going with parts 1 and 2 is to see how to keep this group as small as possible. -- Joost
