On 12/17/2012 04:31 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote: >> Olav Vitters <o...@vitters.nl> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: >>>> As I said in an earlier email, Lennart Poettering claims that it does >>>> not work. We are discussing some of the things necessary to make it >>> work. >>> >>> Just to repeat: >>> In this thread it was claimed that a separate /usr is not supported by >>> systemd/udev. >>> >>> A case which works with latest systemd on various distributions. I >>> checked with upstream (not Lennart), and they confirmed it works. I can >>> wait for Lennart to say the same, but really not needed. >>> >>> I assume this will again turn into a "but I meant something else". >> >> Olav. >> >> Lennart has stated that he considers a seperate /usr without init* broken. > > Yes, as do I, and so do a lot of other developers. > > But that is a system configuration issue, not a systemd issue, please > don't confuse the two.
You can add me to that list. The only difference is that I feel differently about what the proper solution is. In particular, I reject the notion that there be a single rules directory. That opens the door to having a second directory on /usr that enforce the requirement that rules that depend on /usr execute after /usr is mounted. >> This has worked correctly in the past. > > Define "past" please. > > Note, it's still broken, I have yet to see any upstream fixes to resolve > all of the issues that are involved here with "fixing" this up. > > Yes, as always, for some subset of users, you can be lucky and it will > work for them, but those systems are getting rarer and rarer these days, > as the rest of upstream (not systemd here) are moving on and not doing > anything to change their behavior for this topic. In practice, the majority of users have no issues in areas that matter to them. Those that do seem to be a small minority. >> The direction udev development is going, according to Lennart, is to >> make that impossible and he refuses to fix this regression. > > Again, this has NOTHING to do with udev or systemd, as has been pointed > out numerous times. I understand your _wish_ that it would have > something to do with it, but that will not change the facts, sorry. It can be said that the systemd developers are not very accommodating to people who want to pursue alternative solutions. >> I am really happy with this project and intend on testing it once >> requests for this appear in the eudev mailing list. > > Good luck, the root problems still remain, and nothing that eudev ever > does can resolve that, sorry. > > Can this topic finally be put to rest please? There is a whole web page > devoted to this topic, why do people blindly ignore it? > > Again, a separate /usr without an initrd has NOTHING to do with systemd > or udev, with the minor exception that Gentoo's packaging of those > programs _might_ have an issue, but that is Gentoo's issue, NOT > upstream's issue. > > If anyone involved with eudev, or is involved with the Gentoo Council > thinks that the previous paragraph is incorrect, they are flat out > wrong. > > greg k-h > The systemd developers do not appear to accept patches unless the patches have direct relevance to Fedora. Many people consider this to be an upstream issue in the context of that. They likely would not think such things had the systemd developers said that they would welcome patches to improve separate /usr support, despite the fact that it would never be used in any configuration that they care to support. The disdain that they have expressed toward such configurations provides validation for such beliefs.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
