Paul Colquhoun wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:17:24 Nuno J. Silva wrote: > > > > > > Also, if you actually read the linked URL, it does explain it won't fail > > > to boot. You do realize these are two different issues here, right? One > > > is people saying that udev-181 will fail to boot, other is the issue > > > described on the URL linked on the news item, which is about stuff in > > > /usr breaking udev rules, which has been around for a long time and will > > > *silently* fail. I remind you that "silently fail" implies that your > > > system will still boot, even if it is affected by the issue. > > > > > > So, instead of fixing udev properly, by making the failures visible > (as they probably should have been from the start) or even re-queueing > the events to be run after the rule files are avaiable, the developers > took the easy (for them) way out, and told the rest of the world to do > things their way. > > > >
Basically, yep. If I see a error while booting, in dmesg or some other logging tool, I can handle it and make changes so that it is fixed. When I mentioned on this list about using LVM, I specifically chose to put / on a normal partition to avoid the init thingy. If I have to use a init thingy anyway, I may as well put everything but /boot on LVM. Putting / on LVM usually means you have to have a init thingy so that it can be mounted, from what I have read anyway. It looked like for a while that I was going to have one whether I wanted it or not. Now, just waiting eudev, which is going to fix it like udev/systemd should to begin with. You pretty much got the idea of it tho. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
