Sven Vermeulen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 07:42:29PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:06:48PM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: >> > That said, I'm a bit hesitant to describing that we "recommend" it >> > regardless of the situation. What is wrong with describing when? At >> > least inform our users that the udev rules have evolved to more than >> > just "detect and mknod" scripts and that they are now relying on files >> > and binaries available in other locations, like /usr and /var.
That seems reasonable. >> >> It looks like the situation where we will have to have one is if /usr >> and /var are not on the same file system as /, because of how udev has >> evolved. > > This isn't always true. I have /usr and /var on separate logical volumes > (and as such, separate file systems) yet I don't use DEVTMPFS nor an > initrd/initramfs, so I'm sure that the answer is a bit more specific. > I have the same setup and no issues either. I think the problem is for other devices, eg someone mentioned having a bluetooth adapter in their laptop which gets picked up at boot by udev, but needs helpers in /usr. According to https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364235#c1 udev marks (or marked) failing probers as missing devices, not failed, so udev- postmount doesn't pick on them as needing to be rescanned. I'm not sure if that bug's been fixed or not; the call to util_run_program is no longer in that function at: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=blob_plain;f=udev/udev- rules.c;hb=HEAD ..but it might well have the same logical error for all I know. I don't get why we can't allow udev to need localmount, as described in the bug, with CONFIG_DEVTMPFS creating nodes needed to mount /usr /var etc, especially as that setting is now being recommended by upstream. (And ofc we don't have to use it if it's not needed.) Regards, igli. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
