Re: Really, about udev, not init systems
On 01.12.2012 06:18, Michael Biebl wrote: For b/ there is already a bug report for initramfs-tools [1]. It's probably too late to get that into wheezy. But we should follow up there to get that into wheezy. ^ jessie, of course. -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Really, about udev, not init systems
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 05:04:25PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: ]] Bjørn Mork The default 'configure' install locations have changed. Packages for systems with the historic / vs. /usr split need to be adapted, otherwise udev will be installed in /usr and not work properly. Example configuration options to install things the traditional way are in INSTALL. Just stating the facts. I see no reason to discuss these issues any further. «default location» vs «architecture of udev». Reality check, please? No, this really is an architecture question. The udev architecture, which launches short-lived (time-limited) processes in response to kernel events, and in some cases uses the output of those helper processes as input to its own rules for further processing, introduces/encourages dependencies on components that would not be considered appropriate for / per the FHS because they aren't related to system bring-up. Nevertheless, having them in /usr and having /usr on a separate filesystem results in different and possibly racy system behavior. This certainly could have been addressed with a different udev architecture. For instance, udev could have a policy of not allowing anything in its database that's not directly related to device node creation (excluding, e.g., upower), or it could have a standard mechanism for reparsing rules (particularly PROGRAM= and RUN= rules) after /usr is mounted. There are various reasons why these are not considered appropriate / worth doing, and that's fine; I've been convinced myself that it's not reasonable to have a system with /usr on a separate partition and expect that to work without an initramfs, and think we *should* simplify our overall architecture rather than continuing to put effort into moving libraries around between /usr/lib and /lib. But we should be honest with ourselves that this is driven by architecture decisions, not just by default locations. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Really, about udev, not init systems
On 30.11.2012 03:39, Steve Langasek wrote: that's fine; I've been convinced myself that it's not reasonable to have a system with /usr on a separate partition and expect that to work without an initramfs, and think we *should* simplify our overall architecture rather than continuing to put effort into moving libraries around between /usr/lib and /lib. Fully agree. Splitting up (library) packages and moving files around between /lib and /usr/lib is imho pointless work and the valuable and scarce maintainers time is better spent elsewhere. (and fwiw not every maintainer does the split properly). As you already noted, the fix is rather straightforward: a/ just don't put /usr on a separate partition anymore b/ for those how prefer it that way, make an initramfs mandatory to mount /usr For a/ I'd like to see the default d-i partitioning scheme changed to no longer make /usr a separate partition in the advanced partition layout. For b/ there is already a bug report for initramfs-tools [1]. It's probably too late to get that into wheezy. But we should follow up there to get that into wheezy. Since I haven't seen make comment on [1] for quite some time, I've CCed him as I'm interested if he is generally opposed to the idea or he simply has concerns regarding the current implementation that was proposed by Roger. Michael [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652459 -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Really, about udev, not init systems
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org (28/11/2012): That's not truth anymore, since AFAIK rules of udev moved to /usr. May I suggest some fact checking? Try “dpkg -L udev” for a start. Rules moved from /etc to /lib. Not to /usr. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Really, about udev, not init systems
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org writes: Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org (28/11/2012): That's not truth anymore, since AFAIK rules of udev moved to /usr. May I suggest some fact checking? Try “dpkg -L udev” for a start. Yes, the Debian package is OK and I assume it will continue to be. But I believe Thomas was referring to the recently (udev 176) changed upstream default. See e.g. http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/udev.html : udev configuration files are placed in /etc/udev and /usr/lib/udev. Upstream has explained it this way in the changelog: The default 'configure' install locations have changed. Packages for systems with the historic / vs. /usr split need to be adapted, otherwise udev will be installed in /usr and not work properly. Example configuration options to install things the traditional way are in INSTALL. Just stating the facts. I see no reason to discuss these issues any further. Bjørn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/871ufd3nfx@nemi.mork.no
Re: Really, about udev, not init systems
On 11/28/2012 07:16 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org (28/11/2012): That's not truth anymore, since AFAIK rules of udev moved to /usr. May I suggest some fact checking? Try “dpkg -L udev” for a start. Rules moved from /etc to /lib. Not to /usr. Woops, my memory is failing. Thanks for this correction. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50b6293c.9020...@debian.org
Re: Really, about udev, not init systems
On 11/28/2012 08:46 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote: Yes, the Debian package is OK and I assume it will continue to be. But I believe Thomas was referring to the recently (udev 176) changed upstream default. See e.g. http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/udev.html : udev configuration files are placed in /etc/udev and /usr/lib/udev. Ah! Seems I didn't dream and really read this somewhere! :) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50b62a39.7060...@debian.org
Re: Really, about udev, not init systems
]] Bjørn Mork The default 'configure' install locations have changed. Packages for systems with the historic / vs. /usr split need to be adapted, otherwise udev will be installed in /usr and not work properly. Example configuration options to install things the traditional way are in INSTALL. Just stating the facts. I see no reason to discuss these issues any further. «default location» vs «architecture of udev». Reality check, please? -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87wqx5yara@xoog.err.no
Re: Really, about udev, not init systems
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes: ]] Bjørn Mork The default 'configure' install locations have changed. Packages for systems with the historic / vs. /usr split need to be adapted, otherwise udev will be installed in /usr and not work properly. Example configuration options to install things the traditional way are in INSTALL. Just stating the facts. I see no reason to discuss these issues any further. «default location» vs «architecture of udev». Reality check, please? OK. Reality check came back with: Nothing of this really matter to me at all. I am sure a working udev branch will continue to exist, one way or the other. I started feeling a bit nervous back when Mauro desperately tried to make the linux media drivers conform with the new udev firmware loading restrictions. But I managed to stay calm, and it all turned out quite well. One of the nice effects of open source is that there are absolute limits to crazyness. People are free to do whatever crazy stuff they want. Someone else will step forward and fork it back to sanity if necessary. This system works very well. Bjørn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87a9u11u7f@nemi.mork.no
Re: Really, about udev, not init systems
]] Bjørn Mork Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes: ]] Bjørn Mork The default 'configure' install locations have changed. Packages for systems with the historic / vs. /usr split need to be adapted, otherwise udev will be installed in /usr and not work properly. Example configuration options to install things the traditional way are in INSTALL. Just stating the facts. I see no reason to discuss these issues any further. «default location» vs «architecture of udev». Reality check, please? OK. Reality check came back with: Nothing of this really matter to me at all. I am sure a working udev branch will continue to exist, one way or the other. I think I owe you an apology, the reality check comment was directed at zigo, not at you. I see that wasn't clear. Sorry. I started feeling a bit nervous back when Mauro desperately tried to make the linux media drivers conform with the new udev firmware loading restrictions. But I managed to stay calm, and it all turned out quite well. One of the nice effects of open source is that there are absolute limits to crazyness. People are free to do whatever crazy stuff they want. Someone else will step forward and fork it back to sanity if necessary. This system works very well. Indeed, I think this is a lot of hot air and not that much more, but we'll see. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87obihxy56@xoog.err.no
