On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:37:27AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Apr 16, rleigh <rle...@codelibre.net> wrote: > > > Whether or not /run is a tmpfs or not is *irrelevant* to whether or > > not udev should use it. The choice of filesystem is entirely up to > > the admin, and while the default is to use tmpfs, it is not udev's > > business to alter its behaviour depending on the filesystem in use > > at that location. That's *utterly broken*. > I consider it an acceptable tradeoff, I can remove the code when udev > will depend on the new sysvinit.
The tradeoff here is that if /run is present, udev is broken. That is not acceptable. You should not be using /run at all, unless you have a versioned initscripts dependency. > > udev needs a dependency on initscripts, and then it can > > *unconditionally* make use of /run without relying on broken hacks. > I have no plan to disable the /dev/.udev/ fallback unless it will be > clearly proven that it cannot be viable (hint: the alternative is the > daemon exiting with an error, which is supposed to be worse). Having the fallback is fine. But you can not use /run without a versioned initscripts dependency. > > You're trying to be too clever, and making assumptions that are > > not warranted. > But so far you have not been able to show what I did wrong. > I like to fix bugs, not symptoms. I've shown you what the cause of the problem is. I don't know exactly what is broken. I expect that it is, in part or in full, the broken checks for /run. The initscripts package is available in experimental. You could install it and find out, please. I'm not the udev expert here, but you are. Thanks, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
