Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Dale wrote:
>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 04:05:27 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>>
It's a bug. Roach report here:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409921
Going back a version and then reboot.
>>>
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 04:54:05 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>>> No need for that, just change locking_dir in lvm.conf to somewhere
>>> writeable, as mentioned in the bug report - comment 6.
>
>> Well, I didn't want to mess with the config much since I may make it
>> worse. So, I bui
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:23:01 -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> It seems the problem it's in LVM, or (more appropriately) in the
> failure to create the /run tmpfs:
>
> # mount | grep /run
> tmpfs on /run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,mode=755)
> tmpfs on /var/run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nod
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 04:05:27 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>
>>> It's a bug. Roach report here:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409921
>>>
>>> Going back a version and then reboot.
>>
>> No need for that, just change lock
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 04:54:05 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > No need for that, just change locking_dir in lvm.conf to somewhere
> > writeable, as mentioned in the bug report - comment 6.
> Well, I didn't want to mess with the config much since I may make it
> worse. So, I built a new kernel 3.3.0 and bui
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 04:05:27 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>> It's a bug. Roach report here:
>>
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409921
>>
>> Going back a version and then reboot.
>
> No need for that, just change locking_dir in lvm.conf to somewhere
> writeable, as menti
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 04:05:27 -0500, Dale wrote:
> It's a bug. Roach report here:
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409921
>
> Going back a version and then reboot.
No need for that, just change locking_dir in lvm.conf to somewhere
writeable, as mentioned in the bug report - comment 6
Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>>
>> Dale, could yo please add again rd.debug to your kernel command line,
>> boot with the initramfs, and post the output from dmesg (without you
>> manually mounting your LVM volume)?
>>
>> Regards.
>
> It's attached. I see what it is doing but no id
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Dale wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>> William Kenworthy wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 19:02 -0500, Dale wrote:
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> I do. I don't use LVM, so i didn't had neither USE=device-mapper, nor
> DRACUT_MODULES=lvm, so I add them.
Dale wrote:
> William Kenworthy wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 19:02 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>>
I do. I don't use LVM, so i didn't had neither USE=device-mapper, nor
DRACUT_MODULES=lvm, so I add them. Then I tried to create my initramfs
with LVM, and
William Kenworthy wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 19:02 -0500, Dale wrote:
>> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I do. I don't use LVM, so i didn't had neither USE=device-mapper, nor
>>> DRACUT_MODULES=lvm, so I add them. Then I tried to create my initramfs
>>> with LVM, and like in your case, it
On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 19:02 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> >
> > I do. I don't use LVM, so i didn't had neither USE=device-mapper, nor
> > DRACUT_MODULES=lvm, so I add them. Then I tried to create my initramfs
> > with LVM, and like in your case, it failed. Using the --debug
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> I do. I don't use LVM, so i didn't had neither USE=device-mapper, nor
> DRACUT_MODULES=lvm, so I add them. Then I tried to create my initramfs
> with LVM, and like in your case, it failed. Using the --debug option
> for dracut, it *seems* (it's really verbose and I
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Dale wrote:
> Mike Edenfield wrote:
>
>> It was the debug stuff; every line that look like
>>
>> "dracut: + stuff here"
>>
>> was debugging information; AFAICT dracut mounted /dev/sda3 as root then
>> it mounted the two other partitions it found.
>>
>> But this coul
Mike Edenfield wrote:
> It was the debug stuff; every line that look like
>
> "dracut: + stuff here"
>
> was debugging information; AFAICT dracut mounted /dev/sda3 as root then
> it mounted the two other partitions it found.
>
> But this could be a problem (from your other email):
>
> root@fir
On 4/2/2012 11:12 PM, Dale wrote:
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
Actually, the initramfs finished without a single error: between
[1.962007] dracut: + source_conf /etc/conf.d
and
[2.395576] dracut: Switching root
there is not a single error. The initramfs did what it needed to do;
the u
Dale wrote:
>
> So the init thingy is going to print all that stuff each time? Or is
> that the debug stuff you had me add to the grub line? Please say it is
> so. It's one reason I checked my email. I was counting and realized
> the debug stuff that was added may haver done all that. Taking
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Dale wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>
>>
>> I think I got it all sorted and am building a new kernel. It will have
>> a -2 on the end instead of a -1. I'll test it in a bit. I got some
>> things to prepare for tomorrow plus we have storms coming in tonight.
>> The rain is
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2012 7:26 AM, "Dale" wrote:
>>>
>>> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> zgrep DEVTMP /proc/config.gz
>
>
> Ooops,
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Dale wrote:
>> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> zgrep DEVTMP /proc/config.gz
Ooops, it sort of snipped a bit much. lol Here you go:
ro
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2012 7:26 AM, "Dale" wrote:
>>
>> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Dale wrote:
>> >> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> >>> zgrep DEVTMP /proc/config.gz
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ooops, it sort of snipped a bit much.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Dale wrote:
>>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
zgrep DEVTMP /proc/config.gz
>>>
>>>
>>> Ooops, it sort of snipped a bit much. lol Here you go:
>>>
>>> root@fireball / # zgrep DEVTMP /proc/con
On Apr 3, 2012 7:26 AM, "Dale" wrote:
>
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Dale wrote:
> >> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >>> zgrep DEVTMP /proc/config.gz
> >>
> >>
> >> Ooops, it sort of snipped a bit much. lol Here you go:
> >>
> >> root@fireball / # zgrep DEVTMP /proc
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Dale wrote:
>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> zgrep DEVTMP /proc/config.gz
>>
>>
>> Ooops, it sort of snipped a bit much. lol Here you go:
>>
>> root@fireball / # zgrep DEVTMP /proc/config.gz
>> # CONFIG_DEVTMPFS is not set
>> root@fireball
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Dale wrote:
>>
>> Here is my grub lines:
>>
>> title=Initramfs-new_kernel
>> root (hd0,0)
>> kernel /boot/bzImage-3.2.11-1 root=/dev/sda3 init=/sbin/init rd.debug
>> rd.udev.debug
>> initrd /initramfs-3.2.11.img
>>
>> title Gentoo
>> k
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> zgrep DEVTMP /proc/config.gz
>
>
> Ooops, it sort of snipped a bit much. lol Here you go:
>
> root@fireball / # zgrep DEVTMP /proc/config.gz
> # CONFIG_DEVTMPFS is not set
> root@fireball / #
>
> Looks like a nope to me. ;-)
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> zgrep DEVTMP /proc/config.gz
Ooops, it sort of snipped a bit much. lol Here you go:
root@fireball / # zgrep DEVTMP /proc/config.gz
# CONFIG_DEVTMPFS is not set
root@fireball / #
Looks like a nope to me. ;-)
Dale
:-) :-)
--
I am only responsible for what I said ..
On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 02:41:12 -0500, Dale wrote:
> switch_root: failed to mount moving /dev to /sysroot/dev: Invaild
> argument
Do you have DEVTMPFS support in your kernel? What do you get from
zgrep DEVTMP /proc/config.gz
--
Neil Bothwick
After all is said and done let there not be more said
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> <<>>
>> Well damn. Why you do not have devtmpfs? In all the machines I have
>> access to (with or without initramfs, with either systemd or OpenRC),
>> they have devtmps:
>>
>> devtmpfs on /dev type devtmpfs
>> (rw,nosuid,r
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
<<>>
> Well damn. Why you do not have devtmpfs? In all the machines I have
> access to (with or without initramfs, with either systemd or OpenRC),
> they have devtmps:
>
> devtmpfs on /dev type devtmpfs
> (rw,nosuid,relatime,size=2023140k,nr_inodes=505785,mode=755)
> dev
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Dale wrote:
> << SNIP >>
>>> Actually, I log into KDE as a user and when Konsole opens, it asks for
>>> the root password. I have the KDE session saved so it opens all this on
>>> its own.
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Dale wrote:
<< SNIP >>
>> Actually, I log into KDE as a user and when Konsole opens, it asks for
>> the root password. I have the KDE session saved so it opens all this on
>> its own. Anyway, since I have it set that way, Konsole never
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> <<< SNIP >>>
>> I'm a little confused: you log in KDE as a regular user, open a
>> Konsole, type "su -", and what happens?
>>
>> What do you mean with "Konsole won't even try to come up"?
>>
>> In the shell that Krusader pr
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
<<< SNIP >>>
> I'm a little confused: you log in KDE as a regular user, open a
> Konsole, type "su -", and what happens?
>
> What do you mean with "Konsole won't even try to come up"?
>
> In the shell that Krusader provides (which I assume you run as a
> regular user),
* Dale [120329 17:39]:
[..]
> I already tried making one from scratch and also making the one inside
> the kernel. Both belly flopped and left me with nothing but errors. It
> never even tried to leave the init thingy environment. I think I posted
> them a good long while back but no clue what
On Mar 30, 2012 9:14 AM, "Mike Edenfield" wrote:
>
>8 snip
>
> splashutils, which is the package dracut uses to generate a boot splash
> image, has a lot of dependencies but requires they all be built
> USE=static-libs. Plymouth, which does animated boot splash, is a bit
worse;
> it install
> From: Neil Bothwick [mailto:n...@digimed.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:04 PM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting
> software to /sbin rather than initramfs?
>
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:35:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:35:36 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
> Fine. NFS clients. Samba clients. Crypto. SSHFS. NTFS-3g. Security
> auditing. Virtualization tools. Perl, python or whatever is necessary
> to handle some case which required scripting. X. Graphics loading
> libraries. Cupsd, because some g
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:35:36 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
> >> Don't forget boot-time X-based animation, too. That's an
> >> extraordinarily common feature of mainstream desktop distributions.
> >> And there will be other things, I'm sure.
> >
> > I don't get involved with those, but I'd hope somet
From: Dale [mailto:rdalek1...@gmail.com]
> I had to reboot so I made a new init thingy with the -H switch. It works in
> Console but nothing root works in KDE. I get the same error.
> Heck, Konsole won't even try to come up much less ask for my password.
> Krusader asks for password and says th
Todd Goodman wrote:
> * Dale [120329 16:22]:
>> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>>> Can you try doing
>>>
>>> dracut -H /boot/initramfs-
>>>
>>> ??
>>>
>>> The man page from dracut says that -H is for the "current host"
>>> instead of a "generic host". Maybe the "generic host" configuration is
>>> m
* Dale [120329 16:22]:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> > Can you try doing
> >
> > dracut -H /boot/initramfs-
> >
> > ??
> >
> > The man page from dracut says that -H is for the "current host"
> > instead of a "generic host". Maybe the "generic host" configuration is
> > messing up something
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> Can you try doing
>>
>> dracut -H /boot/initramfs-
>>
>> ??
>>
>> The man page from dracut says that -H is for the "current host"
>> instead of a "generic host". Maybe the "generic host" configuration is
>> messing up s
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> Can you try doing
>
> dracut -H /boot/initramfs-
>
> ??
>
> The man page from dracut says that -H is for the "current host"
> instead of a "generic host". Maybe the "generic host" configuration is
> messing up something with su that your actual host configuration
>
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:13:40 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neil Bothwick
>> wrote:
>
>> >> I'll articulate a few. (i) The initramfs involves having two copies
>> >> of lots of software around.
>> >
>> > Lo
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:13:40 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neil Bothwick
> wrote:
> >> I'll articulate a few. (i) The initramfs involves having two copies
> >> of lots of software around.
> >
> > Lots? For most people busybox is enough! If you want encrypted
> >
> From: Alan Mackenzie [mailto:a...@muc.de]
> Hi, Mike.
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:24:14AM -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> > > From: Alan Mackenzie [mailto:a...@muc.de]
>
> > > Hi, Alan.
>
> > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:29:11 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > It's already happened here. My kernel mounts / and /usr thanks to the
> > inbuilt initramfs
>
> That's exactly what I didn't mean, and I think you might have been aware
> of that.
Maybe, but it does fit your description.
> What I d
Evening, Neil.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 05:35:35PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:56:28 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > I think I have the elegant solution: that would be for the kernel to be
> > able to mount several partitions at system initialisation rather than
> > just
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:56:28 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>> > Well, for one, the initramfs solution is not generally considered
>> > "ugly" except by a select vocal few who object to it on vague,
>> > unarticulated grounds.
>>
>> I'll art
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:56:28 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > Well, for one, the initramfs solution is not generally considered
> > "ugly" except by a select vocal few who object to it on vague,
> > unarticulated grounds.
>
> I'll articulate a few. (i) The initramfs involves having two copies
Hi, Mike.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:24:14AM -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> > From: Alan Mackenzie [mailto:a...@muc.de]
> > Hi, Alan.
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +
> > > Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > Why is nobody else o
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:16:30 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > It's not a blackbox, unlike a kernel or any other binary, it is a
> > simple cpio archive that you can unpack and inspect. If you want
> > total control, build your own, it is not rocket science.
> You sure about that? I have tried building o
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Dale wrote:
>>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>
Incidentally, dracut says it won't work on a kernel without modules. I
don't know if it's true or not.
>>>
>>> Oh really? I don'
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Dale wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>>> Incidentally, dracut says it won't work on a kernel without modules. I
>>> don't know if it's true or not.
>>>
>>
>> Oh really? I don't use modules and I am the one having issues with not
>>
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> It's not a blackbox, unlike a kernel or any other binary, it is a simple
> cpio archive that you can unpack and inspect. If you want total control,
> build your own, it is not rocket science.
>
>
You sure about that? I have tried building one, then
building it inside
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Dale wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, dracut says it won't work on a kernel without modules. I
>> don't know if it's true or not.
>>
>
> Oh really? I don't use modules and I am the one having issues with not
> being able to su to root from a user
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Incidentally, dracut says it won't work on a kernel without modules. I
> don't know if it's true or not.
>
Oh really? I don't use modules and I am the one having issues with not
being able to su to root from a user. I wonder if that is related
somehow. o_O
Dale
:-)
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:45:40 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > echo "Adding: System Rescue CD"
> > menuentry "System Rescue CD" {
> >set sysresiso=/systemrescuecd-x86-2.5.1.iso
> >loopback loop $sysresiso
> >linux (loop)/isolinux/rescue64 rootpass=whatever setkmap=uk
> > isoloop=$sysres
On Wednesday 28 March 2012 22:47:09 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Since someone has already asked about this off-list, the method is
> described on sysrescd.org and involves a GRUB menu entry like
>
> echo "Adding: System Rescue CD"
> menuentry "System Rescue CD" {
>set sysresiso=/systemrescuecd-x86
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:07:33 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > What happens to files that are installed to /bin, /sbin or /lib by
> > default?
>
> Aren't they getting shoved into /usr? I thought that was the whole
> point of the excercise.
That /may/ happen at some time, but not now, so we need
"Mike Edenfield" writes:
>
> Yes , of course it's /possible/, it's just not /practical/.
Perhaps, but still?
I don't se how that is less practical than collecting them to a ramdisk?
Just do exactly the same steps up to the "cpio | gzip" -part
I do agree with most of what you say
>
> Most Linux
Alan McKinnon writes:
>
> I offer you two choices:
>
> a. Move a few commands into an initramfs, truly only the ones you
> really do need, or
> b. Move 7G of files onto / (i.e. everything) and lose any benefit you
> (and everyone else with different ideas to you) may want by having a
> separate /u
> From: Alan Mackenzie [mailto:a...@muc.de]
> Incidentally, dracut says it won't work on a kernel without modules. I
don't
> know if it's true or not.
dracut wants you to have loadable module /support/ in your kernel so it can
scan for modules needed by the rootfs. The kernel-module support in d
From: Pandu Poluan [mailto:pa...@poluan.info]
> On Mar 28, 2012 11:27 AM, "Mike Edenfield" wrote:
>> Well, for one, the initramfs solution is not generally considered "ugly"
>> except by a select vocal few who object to it on vague, unarticulated
>> grounds.
> Check out the email from William K
> From: Canek Peláez Valdés [mailto:can...@gmail.com]
> I agree with most of what you say; however, I believe you are mistaken
> about the static nature of the binaries in the initramfs created by dracut. I
> use dracut with the whole bang (plymouth, systemd, udev, you name it), and
> I don't hav
Hi, Neil.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 03:56:36PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:01:32 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > > Read my other mail and pay attention to the difference between
> > > transient and persistent.
> > In my proposed solution, the executables in /sbin would
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:01:32 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > Read my other mail and pay attention to the difference between
> > transient and persistent.
>
> In my proposed solution, the executables in /sbin would only exist until
> /usr had been mounted and the runtime PATH set up. After the
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:55:20AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +
> > > Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > > > That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was
> > > > to copy (not move
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:32:22 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> We're going to be stuck with some issues anyway, no matter how we cope
> with things. At the moment, I've got my /usr on RAID1, which I think
> doubles up the speed things load at.
Use 0.90 metadata and you can put / on RAID1 too.
> (I
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:17:56 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> Check out the email from William Kenworth in this mailing list; he's
> having trouble with initramfs being a blackbox.
>
> As a (mostly) server guy, I much prefer using a whitebox.
It's not a blackbox, unlike a kernel or any other binary,
On Mar 28, 2012 1:17 PM, "Pandu Poluan" wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 28, 2012 11:27 AM, "Mike Edenfield" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, for one, the initramfs solution is not generally considered "ugly"
> > except by a select vocal few who object to it on vague, unarticulated
> > grounds.
>
> Check out the emai
On Mar 28, 2012 11:27 AM, "Mike Edenfield" wrote:
>
>
> Well, for one, the initramfs solution is not generally considered "ugly"
> except by a select vocal few who object to it on vague, unarticulated
> grounds.
Check out the email from William Kenworth in this mailing list; he's having
trouble w
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Mike Edenfield wrote:
>> From: Alan Mackenzie [mailto:a...@muc.de]
>>
>> Hi, Alan.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +
>> > Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>> > > That is precisely what the questio
> From: Alan Mackenzie [mailto:a...@muc.de]
>
> Hi, Alan.
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +
> > Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
> > > That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to
> > > copy (not move) booting
Hello again, Alan.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:39:27AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:01:28 +
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > Hello, Neil.
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> >
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:35:44 +
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Hi, Alan.
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +
> > Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
> > > That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was
> > > to copy (not m
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:35:44 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Why is nobody else on this thread willing to take up its main point, the
> exact equivalence between the known, ugly, initramfs solution and the as
> yet half-baked idea of putting the same binaries into /sbin?
Bewause everyone else real
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:01:28 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > Your package manager only knows about the copy in the original
> > location.
>
> So? The same applies to a copy in the initramfs.
No it does not. the initramfs is built using the versions installed on
your system, and unloaded as s
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:01:28 +
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Hello, Neil.
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
> > > That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was
> > > to copy (not mo
Hi, Alan.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to
> > copy (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs -
> > the exact same
Hello, Neil.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to copy
> > (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs - the exact
> > sam
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to
> copy (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs -
> the exact same programs, modulo noise - to have the SW in /sbin
> necessary to mount /usr.
Two wo
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to copy
> (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs - the exact
> same programs, modulo noise - to have the SW in /sbin necessary to mount
> /usr.
Your p
Hi, Mike.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 03:56:01PM -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> > From: c...@chrekh.se [mailto:c...@chrekh.se]
> > Neil Bothwick writes:
> > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:26:46 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > >> > As you move more and more software off of /usr into / you start to
> > >
> From: c...@chrekh.se [mailto:c...@chrekh.se]
>
> Neil Bothwick writes:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:26:46 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> >
> >> > As you move more and more software off of /usr into / you start to
> >> > realize that the idea of "tiny partition that contains just what I
> >> >
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:55:37 +0200
c...@chrekh.se wrote:
> Neil Bothwick writes:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:26:46 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> >
> >> > As you move more and more software off of /usr into / you start
> >> > to realize that the idea of "tiny partition that contains just
> >> >
Neil Bothwick writes:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:26:46 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>> > As you move more and more software off of /usr into / you start to
>> > realize that the idea of "tiny partition that contains just what I
>> > need to boot and mount /usr" is becoming "not so tiny" anymore.
88 matches
Mail list logo
