Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 12:34:50 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer <grim...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 11:13:58 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: > >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Michael Schreckenbauer > >> <grim...@gmx.de> > > > > wrote: > >> > Am Mittwoch, 7. September 2011, 23:33:35 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: > >> >> I don't see any problem with an initramfs larger than the > >> >> kernel. It > >> >> will handle a lot of stuff. But if you don't want to change your > >> >> /boot partition, then don't upgrade to new kernels. > >> > > >> > How about accepting the fact, that there are a lot of things out > >> > there > >> > "you don't see"? Get over it. People have told a lot of valid > >> > reasons. > >> > They might not seem valid to you, but that's not their problem. > >> > >> Relax man, I keep saying that is *I* who don't see a valid reason. > >> That doesn't mean there is no valid reason; I thought that went > >> without saying. Sorry if it sounded like I was invalidating all you > >> guys reasons. > >> > >> My primary point was that, I *you* have your reasons to keep a > >> separated /usr, then by all means do it. You will only need an > >> initramfs. > > > > That's the point. You *need* an initramfs. You know KISS? > > If it's so "simple", write the code for support the option of not > having an initramfs. If it's not that simple, then what KISS are we > talking about?
We already *have* the situation of not requiring initramfs for separate /usr. Mission accomplished. It's the upcoming change, that violates KISS. If udev cannot work properly with separate /usr, fix udev not the FS-hierarchy. What next? Put /home into initramfs, because udev decides it cannot work without /home mounted? > >> > Have you *ever* thought about machines, that are not x86 or > >> > x86_64? > >> > Here's an intersting read: > >> > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/72769 > >> > >> No, I haven't thought about them, because I don't use them. What it > >> has to do with anything? > > > > Well, I linked a mail. MIPS is mentioned. As I read it, there are cases > > with MIPS, where the initramfs *has* to be built into the kernel *and* > > the kernel- image is size restricted. That's the problem with an > > initramfs bigger than the kernel itself. > > That's a MIPS restriction. Then with MIPS you will need to put /usr in > /, and problem solved. Solved? You call "no separate /usr on MIPS" a solution? How about existing installations? Ah, yes, don't upgrade. > But no, everyone wants everything, and exactly > the way they want. It works now. > Well, then they will need to write the code to support it, because no > developer is forced to support every single architecture in the whole > damn world, in every possible configuration available. > > >> >> Change happens. > >> > > >> > That's right. And sometimes these changes are simply bad ideas. > >> > >> If so you think, then write the code to support the *really good* > >> ideas. > > > > Ah. Criticism is only allowed, if you are writing the code. Not in my > > world, sorry. > > By all means, criticize as much as you want. What I meant by "If so > you think, then write the code to support the *really good* ideas" is > that you have the *option* to do that. You can of course complain > forever: that will not mean that anybody (and in particular the > developers) will listen. Not listening to users is a very bad idea. > Of course not. But, as with anything Open Source related, the ones > that write the support code will prevail. The complainers (if they > only complain) will not change anything. You keep talking about "complainers". I'd say, we discuss things, as do the gentoo-devs on their list. > My point is: if everything would be the other way around, and the > Gentoo (or kernel, or udev) developers decided that the True One Way > (TM) to do things were to separate / and /usr, I would do it. I did it > when me moved from ipchains to iptables, and that was particularly > painful because every single damn script just stopped working. Ah yes. What option was lost, when this switch happend? Nobody (I think) complains about some config changes. It's the removal of sane and valid options. > But such is life: i didn't write the code. If I wanted to keep up with > development, I needed to change my way of doing things. I have rolled > with the change every single time since I started to use Linux in 1996 > (damn, I'm old), and sometimes it bite you in the ass in the long run > (hello HAL!) > > But most of the times is for a good reason, and everything kinda > improves. And since I'm not writing code, just taking advantage of > getting it for free (as in beer and as in speech), I usually trust > developers. It usually pays off. How's needing an initramsfs for separate /usr an improvement? > Of course, sometimes it doesn't (hello devfs!), but what are you going > to do? Look a gift horse in the mouth? > > In the long term, trusting the developers usually it's the way to go. > Been here a long time, I stick to my guns. Don't like it? Well, > complain if you want, but if you don't writing some code it would > probably be for nothing. Yeah, "probably", that's why we discuss things. > Regards. Regards, Michael
