On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 04:03:53PM -0400, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote
> I answered that already (actually, in that paragraph). But again: udev
> is not trivial, and it solves a (far from) trivial problem. If some
> developers think they can outsmart the kernel devs, please, lets try
> it. Maybe th
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:44:20 -0500, James Wall wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:46 PM, David W Noon
> wrote:
[snip]
> > I have some scripts that generate LVM rebuild scripts. These scan
> > the current logical volumes and
Pandu Poluan wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 19:28, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
On Monday, September 12, 2011 08:14:57 AM Mike Edenfield wrote:
His response, to me, appeared to be a heavy dose of "way
more people use Fedora/Debian/etc than Gentoo so I'm
tailoring my fix to those people" combined wit
On Monday, September 12, 2011 11:29:12 AM Michael Mol wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 19:28, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> >> On Monday, September 12, 2011 08:14:57 AM Mike Edenfield wrote:
> >>> His response, to me, appeared to be a heavy dos
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 19:28, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Monday, September 12, 2011 08:14:57 AM Mike Edenfield wrote:
>>> His response, to me, appeared to be a heavy dose of "way
>>> more people use Fedora/Debian/etc than Gentoo so I'm
>>
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 19:28, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2011 08:14:57 AM Mike Edenfield wrote:
>> His response, to me, appeared to be a heavy dose of "way
>> more people use Fedora/Debian/etc than Gentoo so I'm
>> tailoring my fix to those people" combined with a touch of
On Monday, September 12, 2011 08:14:57 AM Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On 9/12/2011 3:12 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 10, 2011 02:54:58 AM Dale wrote:
> >> If we are so skilled, why is the Fedora dev not listening you reckon?
> >
> > Is the Fedora dev aware of non-Fedora instal
On 9/12/2011 3:12 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
On Saturday, September 10, 2011 02:54:58 AM Dale wrote:
If we are so skilled, why is the Fedora dev not listening you reckon?
Is the Fedora dev aware of non-Fedora installations?
He is, because a Gentoo user/dev explicitly pointed out the
problem
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:34:17 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > I wonder if it could be done more simply. udevd loads but only parses
> > those rule files marked as suitable for early boot time. Later in the
> > boot it switches to "full" mode and loads all rule files.
> >
> > This is so simple it
On Monday, September 12, 2011 10:13:45 AM Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:07:12 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > > I'd like to know why these functions cannot be separated, run the
> > > command to populate /dev early on, then start the udev daemon after
> > > the filesystems have be
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:07:12 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > I'd like to know why these functions cannot be separated, run the
> > command to populate /dev early on, then start the udev daemon after
> > the filesystems have been mounted.
> >
> > Some sort of early boot rules file would need to
On Monday, September 12, 2011 09:49:22 AM Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:45:44 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> > As long as filesystem-support for /usr is in the kernel, why can't
> > "/usr" be mounted right after "/"?
> >
> > Eg. instead of worrying with an init*, why not edit the
Neil Bothwick writes:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:34:42 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
> > Since I am on this list, I tend to confuse Alan and Neil. Is this only
> > me?
Whoops, which should be: I tend to confuse Alan _with_ Neil. But then,
both may be right.
> No, it's not only you. Dale confuses th
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:45:44 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> As long as filesystem-support for /usr is in the kernel, why can't
> "/usr" be mounted right after "/"?
>
> Eg. instead of worrying with an init*, why not edit the boot-scripts to
> have "/usr" mounted before udev and colleagues start?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:37:25 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > So I wonder what Neil will write about this.
>
> He seems to be lying low.
Just in an area with very poor Internet access. I'm back in England now :)
--
Neil Bothwick
Top Oxymorons Number 31: Small crowd
signature.asc
Descript
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:15:52 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Since I am on this list, I tend to confuse Alan and Neil. Is this only
> me? girlfriend says that Alan and Neil are both male bald middle-aged
> pedantic old gits with a fascination for the writing of Douglas Adams.
> And they are both gra
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:34:42 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
> > Me either. That's when I had to accept that I was a true chatter
> > box. O_O I wonder if Neil knows this? He may not realize how many
> > he sends either.
>
> Since I am on this list, I tend to confuse Alan and Neil. Is this only
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 09:59:41 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >> http://archives.gentoo.org/stats/gentoo-user-per-year.xml
> > I had absolutely no idea I sent *that* much mail to gentoo-user :-)
> >
>
> Me either. That's when I had to accept that I was a true chatter box.
> O_O I wonder if Neil knows
Joost Roeleveld writes:
> What about the following as a gentoo-solution:
>
> As long as filesystem-support for /usr is in the kernel, why can't
> "/usr" be mounted right after "/"?
>
> Eg. instead of worrying with an init*, why not edit the boot-scripts to
> have "/usr" mounted before udev and c
On Sunday, September 11, 2011 08:44:20 PM James Wall wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:46 PM, David W Noon wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:07:23 -0500, Dale wrote about Re:
> >
> > [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot:
> >> Mick wrote:
> >> >
Joost Roeleveld wrote:
On Saturday, September 10, 2011 02:56:48 AM Dale wrote:
I sometimes think people get tired of the chatter box. lol I wonder
if I am on somebody's blacklist? :/
If you are, that person is missing out on some good entertainment :)
That may depend on my meds. lol
Dale
On Friday, September 09, 2011 07:24:06 PM pk wrote:
> On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote:
> > Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse it
>
> Yes Dale, you have my permission! And while you're at it, slap him from
> me too! ;-)
>
> It _may_ be this guy that's responsible
On Saturday, September 10, 2011 02:56:48 AM Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:25:22 -0500
> >
> > Dale wrote:
> >> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >>> I'm lucky, I can vote with my feet. Out of 140, I have two servers
> >>> that *require* Linux. One runs Sybase ASE, the other r
On Saturday, September 10, 2011 02:54:58 AM Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > You give me too much credit :-)
> >
> > There's also Neil, Wonko, Volker, Stroller, Grant, meino.cramer, Mick,
> > Paul, Harry, Albert, Alex, Walter, Alan Mackenzie (awesome name!),
> > James, kashani, Pandu and abo
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:46 PM, David W Noon wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:07:23 -0500, Dale wrote about Re:
> [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot:
>
>> Mick wrote:
>> > On Sunday 11 Sep 2011 19:56:48 Dale wrote:
>> >
>> > I always have /boot on
David W Noon wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:07:23 -0500, Dale wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot:
Mick wrote:
On Sunday 11 Sep 2011 19:56:48 Dale wrote:
I always have /boot on a separate partition and it is always ext2.
So, that is done. I also have a 200Mb /boot
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:07:23 -0500, Dale wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot:
> Mick wrote:
> > On Sunday 11 Sep 2011 19:56:48 Dale wrote:
> >
> > I always have /boot on a separate partition and it is always ext2.
> > So, that is done. I also have a
Mick wrote:
On Sunday 11 Sep 2011 19:56:48 Dale wrote:
I always have /boot on a separate partition and it is always ext2. So,
that is done. I also have a 200Mb /boot partition. It sometimes gets
about half full but I could just clean out old kernels more often. I
could always make /boot larg
On Sunday 11 Sep 2011 19:56:48 Dale wrote:
> Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:24:06 PM pk wrote:
> >> On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote:
> >>> Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse
> >>> it
> >>
> >> Yes Dale, you have my permission! And while you're at
Paul Colquhoun wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:24:06 PM pk wrote:
On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote:
Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse it
Yes Dale, you have my permission! And while you're at it, slap him from
me too! ;-)
It _may_ be this guy that's responsible
Paul Colquhoun writes:
> Looking at "initramfs" as a modern Linux replacement for the
> "bootable / partition" of traditional Unix systems does make some
> sense, even though I think it could be made simpler.
>
> Fot those opposed to initramfs, would you also object to /boot being
> 1) a mandit
Keith Dart writes:
> === On Sun, 09/11, Alex Schuster wrote: ===
> > Interesting. What are the advantages?
>
> Mainly that it's simpler, as a bootloader should be. However it does
> have some nice features, such as making nice looking, interactive
> menus. You can also edit the config file by han
On 2011-09-10 18:09, Dale wrote:
> From my understanding, the dev is not listening. That is another thing
> that bothers me. When devs stop listening to users, that causes a
AFAIU he doesn't listen to people not running RHEL/Fedora (or any of the
big binary distros). For a binary distro, that m
On Saturday 10 September 2011 23:35:56 Alex Schuster wrote:
> Alan McKinnon writes:
> > And they are both grammar Nazis.
>
> And I thought that was Peter Humphrey... or are all of you the same
> person? Who can tell.
First among equals? And seventh on the list!
> > She is not in the least surpr
On Sep 11, 2011 3:25 PM, "Mike Edenfield" wrote:
>
> It would make perfect sense to me for the udev maintainer to simply
declare a split /,/usr "not supported" and let us deal with the issues. The
problem, if I'm reading correctly, is that he's taken things one step
further and decided to move ude
On 9/10/2011 5:28 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:19:10 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Dale wrote:
Mick wrote:
From my understanding, the dev is not listening. That is another
thing that bothers me. When devs stop listening to users, that
causes
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:16:48 +1000
Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> I've had a look at the stuff at those links, and some of what they
> link to in turn, and had a bit of a think about it.
>
> Looking at "initramfs" as a modern Linux replacement for the
> "bootable / partition" of traditional Unix system
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:24:06 PM pk wrote:
> On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote:
> > Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse it
>
> Yes Dale, you have my permission! And while you're at it, slap him from
> me too! ;-)
>
> It _may_ be this guy that's responsible for this c
=== On Sun, 09/11, Alex Schuster wrote: ===
> Interesting. What are the advantages?
Mainly that it's simpler, as a bootloader should be. However it does
have some nice features, such as making nice looking, interactive
menus. You can also edit the config file by hand, if you need to, and
it's all
Keith Dart writes:
> === On Fri, 09/09, Alex Schuster wrote: ===
> > What I fear much more is when good old grub is no longer supported
> > and I have to use grub2, which I tried to understand, but failed.
>
> Ya, it's horrid. But the {sys,ext}linux bootloader is still there and
> maintained and I
Alan McKinnon writes:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:34:42 +0200
> Alex Schuster wrote:
> > Since I am on this list, I tend to confuse Alan and Neil. Is this
> > only me?
At least I know by now that you are the South Africa guy.
> Alan's girlfriend says that Alan and Neil are both male bald middle-a
=== On Fri, 09/09, Alex Schuster wrote: ===
> What I fear much more is when good old grub is no longer supported
> and I have to use grub2, which I tried to understand, but failed.
===
Ya, it's horrid. But the {sys,ext}linux bootloader is still there and
maintained and I like it better. I use ext
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Since I am on this list, I tend to confuse Alan and Neil. Is this only
me? girlfriend says that Alan and Neil are both male bald middle-aged
pedantic old gits with a fascination for the writing of Douglas Adams.
And they are both grammar Nazis. She is not in the least surpr
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:19:10 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Dale wrote:
> > Mick wrote:
> > From my understanding, the dev is not listening. That is another
> > thing that bothers me. When devs stop listening to users, that
> > causes a problem. Remember hal? How
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:34:42 +0200
Alex Schuster wrote:
> > Me either. That's when I had to accept that I was a true chatter
> > box. O_O I wonder if Neil knows this? He may not realize how many
> > he sends either.
>
> Since I am on this list, I tend to confuse Alan and Neil. Is this
> onl
William Kenworthy wrote:
Actually, thats a bit optimistic - 2002
moriah ~ # ls -alth /var/backups/rattus/20110710/tree/etc/
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 104 Sep 6 2003 hsf
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root80 May 13 2003 sysconfig
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root72 Jan 7
On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 01:33 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 02:54 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > You give me too much credit :-)
> > >
> > > There's also Neil, Wonko, Volker, Stroller, Grant, meino.cramer, Mick,
> > > Paul, Harry, Albert, Alex, Walter, Ala
On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 02:54 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > You give me too much credit :-)
> >
> > There's also Neil, Wonko, Volker, Stroller, Grant, meino.cramer, Mick,
> > Paul, Harry, Albert, Alex, Walter, Alan Mackenzie (awesome name!),
> > James, kashani, Pandu and about a 1000
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> On Sep 10, 2011 11:22 PM, "Michael Mol" wrote:
>>
>> As I understand it, nothing of udev itself is in /usr, but instead
>> packages and scripts which plug themselves into udev to be triggered
>> by various events.
>>
>> Perhaps the real so
Michael Mol wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Dale wrote:
Mick wrote:
From my understanding, the dev is not listening. That is another thing that
bothers me. When devs stop listening to users, that causes a problem.
Remember hal? How many people complained early on about the config
On Sep 10, 2011 11:22 PM, "Michael Mol" wrote:
>
> As I understand it, nothing of udev itself is in /usr, but instead
> packages and scripts which plug themselves into udev to be triggered
> by various events.
>
> Perhaps the real solution is to circumvent udev and get those other
> packages and s
Dale writes:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:54:58 -0500
> > Dale wrote:
> >
> >> That is true. There are lots who post a lot here. I just recall
> >> seeing some stats somewhere and me and you were the top two. That
> >> was about a year ago so it may have changed. Just had
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Dale wrote:
> Mick wrote:
> From my understanding, the dev is not listening. That is another thing that
> bothers me. When devs stop listening to users, that causes a problem.
> Remember hal? How many people complained early on about the config files?
> Lots.
Mick wrote:
I've flirted with Slackware before I came over to Gentoo and the
reason I chose Gentoo is because it gave me more freedom to built and
configure an OS exactly as I wanted it. I was at the time thinking of
trying BSD with portage, but when I was keeping an eye on it there was
this s
Alex Schuster wrote:
Dale writes:
pk wrote:
On 2011-09-09 13:35, Alex Schuster wrote:
When I switched to using an initramfs, it was not very complicated. I
simply use genkernel. With CLEAN="no" and MRPROPER="no", it uses my
/usr/src/linux/.config and does not change the kernel options. Then
On Sep 10, 2011 10:06 PM, "Dale" wrote:
>
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:54:58 -0500
>> Dale wrote:
>>
>>> That is true. There are lots who post a lot here. I just recall
>>> seeing some stats somewhere and me and you were the top two. That
>>> was about a year ago so it m
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:54:58 -0500
Dale wrote:
That is true. There are lots who post a lot here. I just recall
seeing some stats somewhere and me and you were the top two. That
was about a year ago so it may have changed. Just had to go find
that link again. Here it is
Dale writes:
> pk wrote:
> > On 2011-09-09 13:35, Alex Schuster wrote:
> >
> >> When I switched to using an initramfs, it was not very complicated. I
> >> simply use genkernel. With CLEAN="no" and MRPROPER="no", it uses my
> >> /usr/src/linux/.config and does not change the kernel options. Then
>
Dale writes:
> I know one thing, BSD is secure as heck. I installed it once on a old
> rig and typed the password in wrong during setup. I never could get
> into that thing again. I had to start over.
That's what you thought :) Normally, all you have to do is to boot in
single user mode, th
On Saturday 10 Sep 2011 08:36:59 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 21:23:42 -0400
>
> Michael Mol wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Dale wrote:
> > > Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> > >> Am Freitag, 9. September 2011, 19:24:06 schrieb pk:
> > >>> On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:54:58 -0500
Dale wrote:
> That is true. There are lots who post a lot here. I just recall
> seeing some stats somewhere and me and you were the top two. That
> was about a year ago so it may have changed. Just had to go find
> that link again. Here it is:
>
> http://ar
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:25:22 -0500
Dale wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
I'm lucky, I can vote with my feet. Out of 140, I have two servers
that *require* Linux. One runs Sybase ASE, the other runs Oracle.
Everything else works like a bomb on FreeBSD. kthankxbyeudev,
thanksfor
Alan McKinnon wrote:
You give me too much credit :-)
There's also Neil, Wonko, Volker, Stroller, Grant, meino.cramer, Mick,
Paul, Harry, Albert, Alex, Walter, Alan Mackenzie (awesome name!),
James, kashani, Pandu and about a 1000 more whose names I can't exactly
recall right now.
This here mail
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 21:23:42 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Dale wrote:
> > Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> >>
> >> Am Freitag, 9. September 2011, 19:24:06 schrieb pk:
> >>>
> >>> On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote:
>
> Can I slap whoever started this? The more
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:58:23 -0500
Dale wrote:
> Michael Mol wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Dale wrote:
> >> I may go the BSD route too if I leave Gentoo. So, my feet works
> >> too. I wonder if I would even be missed here? :/
> > I'd hate it if you left. In the short time I've be
On 2011-09-10 03:49, Dale wrote:
> If I recall correctly, Gentoo is sort of based on BSD. I don't think
> using their target would solve the problem with udev tho.
FreeBSD uses "Ports" which Portage is based on, AIUI. The FreeBSD kernel
doesn't use udev. They do have a similar thing though calle
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:25:22 -0500
Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > I'm lucky, I can vote with my feet. Out of 140, I have two servers
> > that *require* Linux. One runs Sybase ASE, the other runs Oracle.
> > Everything else works like a bomb on FreeBSD. kthankxbyeudev,
> > thanksfornotp
Michael Mol wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Dale wrote:
I may go the BSD route too if I leave Gentoo. So, my feet works too. I
wonder if I would even be missed here? :/
I'd hate it if you left. In the short time I've been on this list,
your usage habits and history are the ones I've
Michael Mol wrote:
Doesn't Gentoo have a BSD target? The problem here is with udev, which
doesn't apply to BSD, AFAIK. Gentoo/BSD might be a good direction to
go.
Also, where does FreeBSD's kernel stand, with respect to device drivers?
If I recall correctly, Gentoo is sort of based on BSD. I
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Dale wrote:
> I may go the BSD route too if I leave Gentoo. So, my feet works too. I
> wonder if I would even be missed here? :/
I'd hate it if you left. In the short time I've been on this list,
your usage habits and history are the ones I've identified most wi
Alan McKinnon wrote:
I'm lucky, I can vote with my feet. Out of 140, I have two servers
that *require* Linux. One runs Sybase ASE, the other runs Oracle.
Everything else works like a bomb on FreeBSD. kthankxbyeudev,
thanksfornotplayingnicely Not everyone else is so fortunate though.
I guess
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Dale wrote:
> Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
>>
>> Am Freitag, 9. September 2011, 19:24:06 schrieb pk:
>>>
>>> On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote:
Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse it
>>>
>>> Yes Dale, you have my permission
Alex Schuster wrote:
Dale writes:
Alex Schuster wrote:
David W Noon writes:
The more I think about this merge of / and /usr, the dumber I think
the idea is. As I wrote in an earlier message on this list, the
initramfs will be many times larger than the kernel itself. Indeed,
my /boot parti
Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
Am Freitag, 9. September 2011, 19:24:06 schrieb pk:
On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote:
Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse it
Yes Dale, you have my permission! And while you're at it, slap him from
me too! ;-)
It _may_ be this guy
Alex Schuster wrote:
Right, I somehow overlooked this, thanks for pointing that out. Dale,
if you want to avoid the initramfs, what about moving large stuff like
/usr/src to another location and symlinking it? That's a hack, but a
small one compared to what an initramfs is :) Wonko
I already
pk wrote:
On 2011-09-09 13:35, Alex Schuster wrote:
When I switched to using an initramfs, it was not very complicated. I
simply use genkernel. With CLEAN="no" and MRPROPER="no", it uses my
/usr/src/linux/.config and does not change the kernel options. Then comes
genkernel --install --lvm -luk
David W Noon writes:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:41:07 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote about Re:
> [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot:
>
> > David W Noon writes:
> >
> > > The more I think about this merge of / and /usr, the dumber I think
> > > the idea i
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:41:07 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot:
> David W Noon writes:
>
> > The more I think about this merge of / and /usr, the dumber I think
> > the idea is. As I wrote in an earlier message on this list, the
>
Am Freitag, 9. September 2011, 19:24:06 schrieb pk:
> On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote:
> > Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse it
>
> Yes Dale, you have my permission! And while you're at it, slap him from
> me too! ;-)
>
> It _may_ be this guy that's responsible
On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote:
> Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse it
Yes Dale, you have my permission! And while you're at it, slap him from
me too! ;-)
It _may_ be this guy that's responsible for this crap:
http://linuxplumbersconf.org/ocw/users/58
Also:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Alex Schuster wrote:
> pk writes:
>
>> On 2011-09-09 13:35, Alex Schuster wrote:
>>
>> > When I switched to using an initramfs, it was not very complicated. I
>> > simply use genkernel. With CLEAN="no" and MRPROPER="no", it uses my
>> > /usr/src/linux/.config and do
pk writes:
> On 2011-09-09 13:35, Alex Schuster wrote:
>
> > When I switched to using an initramfs, it was not very complicated. I
> > simply use genkernel. With CLEAN="no" and MRPROPER="no", it uses my
> > /usr/src/linux/.config and does not change the kernel options. Then
> > comes genkernel -
On 2011-09-09 13:35, Alex Schuster wrote:
> When I switched to using an initramfs, it was not very complicated. I
> simply use genkernel. With CLEAN="no" and MRPROPER="no", it uses my
> /usr/src/linux/.config and does not change the kernel options. Then comes
> genkernel --install --lvm -luks al
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Dale wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
I htink almost everyone understand this. Regards.
>>>
>>> I think you are one of *very* few that understands this.
>>>
>>> This
Dale writes:
> Alex Schuster wrote:
> > David W Noon writes:
> >
> >> The more I think about this merge of / and /usr, the dumber I think
> >> the idea is. As I wrote in an earlier message on this list, the
> >> initramfs will be many times larger than the kernel itself. Indeed,
> >> my /boot pa
On Friday 09 Sep 2011 12:35:47 Alex Schuster wrote:
> Dale writes:
>
> Wow, what a big thread. While I also do not really like udev
> requiring /usr at boot time, I also understand that there are some
> arguments pro doing so.
> But then, I wonder what the big deal is. If an initramfs is now requi
Alex Schuster wrote:
David W Noon writes:
The more I think about this merge of / and /usr, the dumber I think the
idea is. As I wrote in an earlier message on this list, the initramfs
will be many times larger than the kernel itself. Indeed, my /boot
partition is only 32 MiB, and that will be
David W Noon writes:
> The more I think about this merge of / and /usr, the dumber I think the
> idea is. As I wrote in an earlier message on this list, the initramfs
> will be many times larger than the kernel itself. Indeed, my /boot
> partition is only 32 MiB, and that will be too small to co
Dale writes:
Wow, what a big thread. While I also do not really like udev
requiring /usr at boot time, I also understand that there are some
arguments pro doing so.
But then, I wonder what the big deal is. If an initramfs is now required
for people using a separate /usr, then let's all use an init
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:34:56 -0400
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > You don't need every possible thing that udev could ever run to be
> > avialable on /, just the things that are essential. That is quite a
> > small list subset of the full list of all possible devices:
> >
> > All HID devices
> > A
On Thursday, September 08, 2011 03:01:10 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:35 PM, pk wrote:
> >> On 2011-09-08 16:51, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >>> But the freedom is still there. The freedom to either keep your
> >>
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 03:53:26 -0500
Dale wrote:
> Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> > >From my point of view, as an old Solaris admin, point 3) is the
> > problem. If what-ever-it-is is needed during boot, it should be in
> > /sbin or /bin or /lib If it is curently in /usr/* then it is in the
> > wrong p
On Thursday, September 08, 2011 06:55:32 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Dale wrote:
> > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >> I htink almost everyone understand this. Regards.
> >
> > I think you are one of *very* few that understands this.
> >
> > This reminds me of a
Paul Colquhoun wrote:
>From my point of view, as an old Solaris admin, point 3) is the
problem. If what-ever-it-is is needed during boot, it should be in
/sbin or /bin or /lib If it is curently in /usr/* then it is in the
wrong place, and that package should be modified. Later in the thread
yo
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 04:03:53 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> No, I think you haven't been reading carefully enough. Again:
>
> 1. In 2011, we need a dynamic /dev tree. I'm not going to argue why.
> 2. udev, successor of devfs, which was successor of the classical /dev
> tree, after years of design
Mick wrote:
On Friday 09 Sep 2011 00:26:33 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
In the case of Gentoo, the dialog is having place in the dev list, at
this very moment. In the case of Fedora (and, I think, OpenSuse), the
dialog is actually over. The Gentoo devs are just going with the flow.
(This is how I
On Friday 09 Sep 2011 00:26:33 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Alan McKinnon
wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 18:39:21 -0400
> >
> > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Mick
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Unless I misunderstood this and reference
On 2011-09-08 20:41, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> Yeah, but not the second part that you conveniently omitted: the
> freedom to modify the code.
What does the freedom to modify the code has to do with this discussion?
I thought we were discussing removed functionality (or changed as you
like to s
On 2011-09-08 20:40, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> The world is never black or white. Under several definitions,
> *nothing* has stopped working.
Hm. Using the same setup as I always have, nothing will stop working
with the new "paradigm"? Great, then what are we arguing about? If
things will work
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Dale wrote:
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
I htink almost everyone understand this. Regards.
I think you are one of *very* few that understands this.
This reminds me of a old joke. One in four people have a mental issue.
Check three f
1 - 100 of 226 matches
Mail list logo
