Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:30:07 +0100 Marc Schiffbauer msch...@gentoo.org wrote: * Olivier Crête schrieb am 04.01.12 um 18:40 Uhr: On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 15:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:51:12 +0100 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: /bin/systemctl libdbus-1.so.3 = /usr/lib64/libdbus-1.so.3 Here is a prime example of why vertical integration should really be called a horrible mess of tight coupling... You clearly have failed to realize that d-bus is a now the bus for system messaging and is as much part of the system as syslog or bash. Probably even more so, for example, in Fedora 17, you'll be able to boot without syslog or bash, but you need d-bus. IMO a system should *always* be bootable without that high level stuff. And by bootable I mean that you can get a root prompt at least. And why do you consider D-Bus being high-level? Just because things used to reinvent the wheel before in a much worse fashion? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
* Michał Górny schrieb am 05.01.12 um 09:26 Uhr: On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:30:07 +0100 Marc Schiffbauer msch...@gentoo.org wrote: * Olivier Crête schrieb am 04.01.12 um 18:40 Uhr: On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 15:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:51:12 +0100 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: /bin/systemctl libdbus-1.so.3 = /usr/lib64/libdbus-1.so.3 Here is a prime example of why vertical integration should really be called a horrible mess of tight coupling... You clearly have failed to realize that d-bus is a now the bus for system messaging and is as much part of the system as syslog or bash. Probably even more so, for example, in Fedora 17, you'll be able to boot without syslog or bash, but you need d-bus. IMO a system should *always* be bootable without that high level stuff. And by bootable I mean that you can get a root prompt at least. And why do you consider D-Bus being high-level? Just because things used to reinvent the wheel before in a much worse fashion? I meant hight-level only in a way that it is not really needed to boot the very basic things of a system so that I can get a root prompt at the console at least. E.g. you do not need dbus to find and mount the rootfs, fire a getty and shell. -Marc -- 8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317 3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134 pgp25u9OqPf4y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 12:08 +0100, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: I meant hight-level only in a way that it is not really needed to boot the very basic things of a system so that I can get a root prompt at the console at least. E.g. you do not need dbus to find and mount the rootfs, fire a getty and shell. Obviously, you can do init=/bin/sh, that's doesn't help you much. I think we're all speaking of a minimually useful system here. -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 12:08 +0100, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: I meant hight-level only in a way that it is not really needed to boot the very basic things of a system so that I can get a root prompt at the console at least. E.g. you do not need dbus to find and mount the rootfs, fire a getty and shell. Obviously, you can do init=/bin/sh, that's doesn't help you much. I think we're all speaking of a minimally useful system here. -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: media-radio/fldigi (unless patched for fltk-1.3)
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 01:59:54 +0200 Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: # Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (23 Dec 2011) # Missing fltk-1.3 support and forced downgrade of fltk # in the same stabilization level which makes this gentoo-x86 # incompatible package. Bug 395747. Removal in 30 days. media-radio/fldigi Dropped the mask as fldigi-3.21.35_pre1 (in tree) supports fltk-1.3 as well as fltk-1.1 Thomas --
[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
Olivier Crête posted on Thu, 05 Jan 2012 09:31:07 -0500 as excerpted: On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 12:08 +0100, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: I meant hight-level only in a way that it is not really needed to boot the very basic things of a system so that I can get a root prompt at the console at least. E.g. you do not need dbus to find and mount the rootfs, fire a getty and shell. Obviously, you can do init=/bin/sh, that's doesn't help you much. I think we're all speaking of a minimally useful system here. But init=/bin/sh (or /bin/bash as I use here) DOES help in a surprising number of cases as long as the necessary storage and input drivers and filesystem modules are builtin. And a lot of us have strong ideas about wanting to keep it that way, being able to use init=/bin/sh on the kernel command line itself, from grub or whatever. Some of us even tried lvm and dumped it for precisely that reason: it requires userspace and thus an initr* if root is on lvm, and without an lvm managing root, its usefulness is diminished to the point where it's more trouble than it's worth, especially since md/raid has handled partitioned RAID very well for quite some time now (a big use case for lvm originally, since md/raid didn't handle partitioned mds directly, back in the day), AND unlike lvm, it can be configured on the kernel command line directly, allowing one to actually get to that init=/bin/sh if necessary. That's low level. Tell me when init=/usr/bin/dbus-whatever works from the kernel command line. Until then, system-bus or no-system-bus, it's not even in the same ball park, or even on the same planet, come to think of it, level-wise. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 17:12:26 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: But init=/bin/sh (or /bin/bash as I use here) DOES help in a surprising number of cases as long as the necessary storage and input drivers and filesystem modules are builtin. And a lot of us have strong ideas about wanting to keep it that way, being able to use init=/bin/sh on the kernel command line itself, from grub or whatever. [...] That's low level. Looking at your definition of 'low level', it seems that OpenRC is high level as well. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 07:27:49AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote: 2012/1/5 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Michał Górny wrote: There's really nothing pointless or blurry about this separation. The FHS has a nice definition: The contents of the root filesystem must be adequate to boot, restore, recover, and/or repair the system. Given that these tools are being moved to /usr and/or duplicated to in initrd , what is the point of a root filesystem anyway now? Just to mount other things on? Just to store /etc ? Or will /etc move to /usr too? No, /etc isn't going anywhere. William pgpI7nEAbZXVR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it). While I can't speak to your comments about being unable to restart daemons with systemd (hope this isn't the case, obviously), dracut does in fact include a copy of some files in /etc like mdadm.conf. So, if you reconfigure your raid it might be beneficial to rebuild your initramfs. As you might expect that is optional - mdadm can more-or-less work without mdadm.conf, but in some cases you could have your raids change name and such. If you mount root by UUID that won't prevent you from booting, but it might mess up your own scripts if you refer to md devices by number. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:08:44PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Or will /etc move to /usr too? No, /etc isn't going anywhere. Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it). Obviously, you'd have to reboot if you made any changes to your config files, but that's OK since you can't safely restart daemons anyway. They've thought of that, and will make - kexec mandatory so that reboots are not needed for those times you need to switch kernels - make hibernation mandatory for the other times
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: Or will /etc move to /usr too? No, /etc isn't going anywhere. Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it). Obviously, you'd have to reboot if you made any changes to your config files, but that's OK since you can't safely restart daemons anyway. Dude, the systemd people are not crazy. You should try to understand what they do before criticizing. -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:02:09 -0500 Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: Or will /etc move to /usr too? No, /etc isn't going anywhere. Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it). Obviously, you'd have to reboot if you made any changes to your config files, but that's OK since you can't safely restart daemons anyway. Dude, the systemd people are not crazy. You should try to understand what they do before criticizing. I don't claim they're crazy. I claim they're sacrificing functionality, correctness, loose coupling, simplicity, well defined behaviour, understandability and stability in order to implement questionable new shiny things. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 21:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:02:09 -0500 Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: Or will /etc move to /usr too? No, /etc isn't going anywhere. Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it). Obviously, you'd have to reboot if you made any changes to your config files, but that's OK since you can't safely restart daemons anyway. Dude, the systemd people are not crazy. You should try to understand what they do before criticizing. I don't claim they're crazy. I claim they're sacrificing functionality, correctness, loose coupling, simplicity, well defined behaviour, understandability and stability in order to implement questionable new shiny things. The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide more functionality than any other init system, more correctness (seriously, did you ever read most init scripts out there?), more well defined behavior (all systemd systems boot exactly the same), more stability (I'll claim that Lennart's C is better than any of the boot-time shell scripts I've seen) and well understandability depends who much you can understand C. Probably a bit less understandable for sysadmins, but since they can just play with config files, it's probably easier to understand in the end (and much less prone to breaking than mucking around shell scripts). -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 21:09:35 + Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:02:09 -0500 Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: Or will /etc move to /usr too? No, /etc isn't going anywhere. Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it). Obviously, you'd have to reboot if you made any changes to your config files, but that's OK since you can't safely restart daemons anyway. Dude, the systemd people are not crazy. You should try to understand what they do before criticizing. I don't claim they're crazy. I claim they're sacrificing functionality, correctness, loose coupling, simplicity, well defined behaviour, understandability and stability in order to implement questionable new shiny things. Are you talking about the /usr move, systemd or udev now? Or just throwing random nouns to prove some random point? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 23:06:18 +0100 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: I don't claim they're crazy. I claim they're sacrificing functionality, correctness, loose coupling, simplicity, well defined behaviour, understandability and stability in order to implement questionable new shiny things. Are you talking about the /usr move, systemd or udev now? Or just throwing random nouns to prove some random point? I'm talking about the GnomeOS concept, which involves all of those. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs
Hello No one from gnome team has time or is willing to keep maintaining www-misc/gurlchecker If anybody volunteers, it would be nice :) Thanks a lot signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:08:44PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:30:24 -0600 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: Or will /etc move to /usr too? No, /etc isn't going anywhere. Are you sure? I heard a rumour that systemd will soon require you to put /etc inside your initrd (since / can't be mounted without it). Obviously, you'd have to reboot if you made any changes to your config files, but that's OK since you can't safely restart daemons anyway. Although this is a bit frightening to think about, because people are crazy enough to actually implement it, this is one of the funniest things I've read lately, thanks for the laugh xD On a serious note though, it seems to me that the /bin | /usr/bin line is too blurry, creating confusion. Migrating everything to a single folder is the simplest solution of all. Combine that with redhat's update approach and it is easy to see why they've taken this route. If people are really interested in keeping a tight, self contained root, we need to: - establish a [tight] list of software we consider critical for / - fix/patch software in that list so it can run without /usr there - create /bin = /usr/bin/ symlinks for above software (simplifies things if packages start hardcoding /usr/bin here and there) - move everything else in /usr/bin/ Do this and I'm sure other people/distros will follow/help and upstreams will accept our patches. I'm sure there are other people who don't like this one bin folder to rule them all logic. If no one is really interested in doing all this... well, whoever actually implements something in open source usually wins the race - it's the same in Gentoo too, no? ;) Only difference here is, one team has the advantage of being paid to do it. -- Alex Alexander | wired + Gentoo Linux Developer ++ www.linuxized.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[gentoo-dev] RFC: news item for sys-apps/systemd - /usr migration
Hello, I'm going to move systemd completely to /usr soonish and thus I'd like to submit the following news item for review. I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions. -- NEWS ITEM FOLLOWS -- Title: systemd /usr migration Author: Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2012-01-06 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 Display-If-Installed: sys-apps/systemd We have decided to move our systemd installation into /usr prefix. After the upgrade, the main systemd executable will be installed as /usr/bin/systemd and the unit files will be installed to /usr/lib/systemd; however, systemd will still look for unit files in the /lib location. For this reason, a new revisions of all systemd versions have been added to the tree and all users are advised to upgrade ASAP to make the transition as painless as possible. To achieve that, the following steps have been taken: 1) the new systemd versions install and enable a path monitoring helper which automatically updates /etc/systemd symlinks when unit files are moved from /lib to /usr/lib; 2) the systemd.eclass will block older versions of systemd to ensure that the service files aren't installed in the new location before the helper service is in place; 3) a symlink is installed at /bin/systemd to ensure that current init= specifications are still valid. Please note that these features will be removed after the transitional period and users upgrading afterwards will have to manually ensure correctness of their installations. The former two features will be removed on 2012-03-01, the last one on 2012-05-01. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: news item for sys-apps/systemd - /usr migration
120106 Michał Górny wrote: I'm going to move systemd completely to /usr soonish and thus I'd like to submit the following news item for review. I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions. -- NEWS ITEM FOLLOWS -- ... For this reason, a new revisions of all systemd versions have been ^^ delete (plural follows) added to the tree and all users are advised to upgrade ASAP to make the transition as painless as possible ... -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote: [snip] The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide more functionality than any other init system, more correctness (seriously, did you ever read most init scripts out there?), more well defined behavior (all systemd systems boot exactly the same), more stability (I'll claim that Lennart's C is better than any of the boot-time shell scripts I've seen) and well understandability depends who much you can understand C. Probably a bit less understandable for sysadmins, but since they can just play with config files, it's probably easier to understand in the end (and much less prone to breaking than mucking around shell scripts). As you apparently have no idea what a sysadmin does I'd appreciate it if people like you didn't try to guess what would make things better and instead listened to people that have more than their desktop to run. (Hint: It's not pressing reset buttons) Given the choice between a single line of shell ( cat $urandom_seed /dev/urandom ) or 145 lines of undocumented C (which, if naively modified by me, might just make systemd segfault) ... there is no choice. I do agree with you on one point - most init scripts are really bad code, but that doesn't mean shell is bad, it means that you need to educate people and file bugs. I've laughed at SLES' /etc/bashrc, I read most of upstart and wondered how ... why ... is it can be drunk tiem? Still that doesn't mean that rewriting it in bad C is in any way more agreeable, and you just made debugging exquisitely painful. Yey.
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On 6 January 2012 06:14, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote: [snip] The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide more functionality than any other init system, more correctness (seriously, did you ever read most init scripts out there?), more well defined behavior (all systemd systems boot exactly the same), more stability (I'll claim that Lennart's C is better than any of the boot-time shell scripts I've seen) and well understandability depends who much you can understand C. Probably a bit less understandable for sysadmins, but since they can just play with config files, it's probably easier to understand in the end (and much less prone to breaking than mucking around shell scripts). As you apparently have no idea what a sysadmin does I'd appreciate it if people like you didn't try to guess what would make things better and instead listened to people that have more than their desktop to run. (Hint: It's not pressing reset buttons) Given the choice between a single line of shell ( cat $urandom_seed /dev/urandom ) or 145 lines of undocumented C (which, if naively modified by me, might just make systemd segfault) ... there is no choice. Seems straightforward and well-documented to me: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/tree/src/random-seed.c. And the if I naively modify things, they might explode argument holds for anything. These are basic things that you almost certainly would not be modifying as a sysadmin anyway. I'd hope that the things that you really do want to muck around with are provided as configuration, and if they're not, you talk to upstream and make a case for this being useful to users. Just like with every other open source project. -- Arun Raghavan http://arunraghavan.net/ (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) (arunsr | GNOME)
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: news item for sys-apps/systemd - /usr migration
On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 00:52 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: 3) a symlink is installed at /bin/systemd to ensure that current init= specifications are still valid. Please note that these features will be removed after the transitional period and users upgrading afterwards will have to manually ensure correctness of their installations. The former two features will be removed on 2012-03-01, the last one on 2012-05-01. Positive effects of removing the /bin/systemd symlink on 2021-05-01: saves one inode in the root fs. Negative effects of removing the /bin/systemd symlink on 2021-05-01: an unknown number of users who had forgotten to update their grub.conf will discover that they can no longer boot their systems. I would suggest not removing the symlink unless there is a technical reason why its presence is undesirable. -Alexandre.
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: news item for sys-apps/systemd - /usr migration
Hi, On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 20:29 -0500, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: Negative effects of removing the /bin/systemd symlink on 2021-05-01: an unknown number of users who had forgotten to update their grub.conf will discover that they can no longer boot their systems. I would suggest not removing the symlink unless there is a technical reason why its presence is undesirable. Doing aggressive migrations like that should really be avoided.. But we know that the real long term solution is to have a /bin - /usr/bin symlink. -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 08:44 +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote: On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote: [snip] The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide more functionality than any other init system, more correctness (seriously, did you ever read most init scripts out there?), more well defined behavior (all systemd systems boot exactly the same), more stability (I'll claim that Lennart's C is better than any of the boot-time shell scripts I've seen) and well understandability depends who much you can understand C. Probably a bit less understandable for sysadmins, but since they can just play with config files, it's probably easier to understand in the end (and much less prone to breaking than mucking around shell scripts). As you apparently have no idea what a sysadmin does I'd appreciate it if people like you didn't try to guess what would make things better and instead listened to people that have more than their desktop to run. (Hint: It's not pressing reset buttons) I know what they do.. play in random scripts until whatever they're trying to hack together it seems to work, because oh well, its just a one time thing.. and then when stuff breaks they call Red Hat's support line. Given the choice between a single line of shell ( cat $urandom_seed /dev/urandom ) or 145 lines of undocumented C (which, if naively modified by me, might just make systemd segfault) ... there is no choice. Actually, you don't have to do that, systemd does it for you and takes care of all the annoying details [1]. That said, you can trivially disable systemd-random-seed-save.service and systemd-random-seed-load.service and instead write a unit file that runs whatever you want. You don't HAVE to do any C to run stuff from systemd, but it does provide many things written in C that are much more solid than the shell equivalents. I do agree with you on one point - most init scripts are really bad code, but that doesn't mean shell is bad, it means that you need to educate people and file bugs. I've laughed at SLES' /etc/bashrc, I read most of upstart and wondered how ... why ... is it can be drunk tiem? Still that doesn't mean that rewriting it in bad C is in any way more agreeable, and you just made debugging exquisitely painful. Yey. The big reason for C vs shell scripts is that the type of people who write them are not the same.. The type of people who write shell scripts tend to hack together stuff until it works. The people who write C tend to think about the problem for a long time and then write a complete solution that tries to take into account all of the possible error scenarios. [1] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/tree/src/random-seed.c -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
