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

[Michael Scherer]

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