[Mageia-dev] Please test: initscripts+systemd in updates_testing

Mon Oct 31 18:17:15 CET 2011

Le lundi 31 octobre 2011 à 19:06 +0200, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
+> Michael Scherer skrev 31.10.2011 18:07:
+> > Le dimanche 30 octobre 2011 à 14:19 +0200, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
+> >>
+> >> I'm saying moving the stuff that is _really_ needed, not based on "udev
+> >> might run"...
+> >>
+> >> well, thinking some more on it I guess the real design flaw (not systemd
+> >> specific) is using all of udev in init. Init should not care about more
+> >> than getting disc access (and probably network for pxe  boots)
+> >
+> > That's the point that Lennart make, ie :
+> > "we used to have / to mount all partition and /usr to be mounted, now,
+> > we have initramfs to mount /, and then / to mount /usr, so it would be
+> > simpler to merge / and /usr"
+> >
+> 
+> -ENOTCONVINCED
+> 
+> So why merge / and /usr and kill a usable feature?
+> 
+> Just have initramfs mount / and /usr, no need to merge.
+
+What is the usable feature ?
+
+To be able to put some kind of quota on /usr ? 
+
+To be able to use a different fs for / and /usr ?
+
+
+> 
+> >> Then we wouldn't have to worry about "what udev might run" and could
+> >> keep a very clean /
+> >>
+> >>>> Well, it _is_ idiotic if it breaks working setups / possibilities to
+> >>>> finetune systems.
+> >>>
+> >>> It depends on your definition of "working". Sure if you specifically
+> >>> work around the know limitations of the design then you may get a
+> >>> bootable system, which you could classify as working, but I wouldn't say
+> >>> this is a robust base. Just a house of cards waiting for the next
+> >>> failure. I'd rather try and address the problems properly and be frank
+> >>> about it in the discussions.
+> >>>
+> >>
+> >> Well, it has worked 24/7 for servers for atleast last 15 years for
+> >> servers I maintain, so I'd say that is pretty robust.
+> >
+> > That's also what people say about manually compiling software in
+> > solaris, and I think they are wrong, so that's not really a compeling
+> > argument to my eyes.
+> 
+> Yeah, well that's your opinion.
+
+That's also yours, or you would be using solaris or slackware instead of
+doing packages.
+
+
+> > In fact "using packages prevent me from finetuning my software" is also
+> > a common and recuring theme from the same people ( well, slightly less
+> > recuring nowadays as I didn't meet people telling me so since gentoo and
+> > slackware usage slightly dropped ).
+> >
+> > We have unix server since 1970, that doesn't mean the assumption that
+> > lead to some design decision are not open to be revisited.
+> 
+> I dont mind people revisiting design decisions, but breaking working 
+> setups sucks bigtime.
+
+So basically, you want fix that just change nothing ? 
+
+> But I guess that's the development trend nowdays: "I cant be bothered to 
+> fix things properly so I just call it "depreceated"... and go ahead
+> and break things just as I like"
+
+Well, what do you propose to fix this properly ?
+
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+
+