On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer <grim...@gmx.de> >> wrote: >>> >>> 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? >> >> Then don't upgrade. Keep doing only security updates. > > And, eventually, those security updates will stop coming. Just > pointing this out.
Agree: but then again, that's the price you pay for not rolling with the change. If you are tenacious enough, you could roll your own security updates. >>> It works now. >> >> Exactly, and if you don't upgrade, it will work as long as you want. > > See my remark on security updates not continuing indefinitely. > >>> Not listening to users is a very bad idea. >> >> No, they listen to users. They just don't listen too every user, >> because that's impossible. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think your setup is >> in the minority of use-cases. Who they should listen to? >> >>> You keep talking about "complainers". >> >> If someone complains and doesn't code, it's a complainer. By >> definition. If someone complains and code, it's creating alternative >> technologies. >> >>> I'd say, we discuss things, as do the >>> gentoo-devs on their list. >> >> I agree. I'm subscribed to both. >> >>> Yeah, "probably", that's why we discuss things. >> >> Again, we can discuss (or complain) until the sun is red. As long as >> we don't give code back, it's basically academic. > > This isn't a discussion. This is a bunch of people offering > displeasure, ideas and/or thoughts, and one person saying, "hey, > nothing I can do. I trust the devs." I disagree: I'm not saying trust the devs and shut up. I'm trying to explain why *I* trust the devs and why *I* think is for the best for someone else to do it. Nobody needs to agree with me, of course, I'm just trying to explain my POV. > A discussion is when there's an interchange of ideas, arguments, > counterarguments, and the fleshing out of a new framework of thought. > That kind of point/counterpoint is *vital* for architectural > foresight. All I keep reading from you is, "if you think that will > work, go write it." *No* writing for a problem of this scope is > warranted without some extensive discussion, noting of edge cases and > planning around the same. Sorry you read that way; I keep trying to explain why I don't find a separated /usr a necessity and why I don't think an initramfs is such a big problem. > People have been pointing out edge cases, use cases which are being > disregarded, etc, and pretty much all they're getting back is "I don't > see those as valid." And I have tried to explain why it's not economically feasible to support every architecture and every set of configurations. Yeah, the only two solutions I see is either roll up with the change, or maintain it yourself. That people don't like the answer doesn't mean is not true. > Granted, you're kinda painting a target on your > back by being the only one defending upstream's decision here Someone has to. I've been using Gentoo almost eight years now, and I usually don't participate in the dicussions, but I have seen in the last years a trend to criticize the devs without actually considering the alternatives. Sometimes the devs do stupid things; but most of the times they really think and come to a solution. And the affected users usually just see how that solution affects them in the short term, instead of trying to see the big picture and how affects the whole distribution, the community, and the technological path that Linux is following. >, but > when someone pointed at an already-existing alternative, you simply > said, "I doubt that'll be the solution." And I doubt it. But I also said that they are more than welcome to try wathever they want. I think the way I think; that's the whole point of me trying to communicate it here. > As for me, this will be a royal inconvenience, and may require the > rebuilding of my primary machine. Still, I can deal. It'll mean > learning how to build initramfs*, how to make sure it contains the > needed tools, and probably a half-dozen other things I didn't even see > coming when I set up this box last fall. I compile my own kernels (no genkernel for me). I don't use modules (except for the stupid scsi_wait_scan), and I didn't used an initramfs until I started using systemd. The arguments for using it convinced me, and I made the switch in all my machines. I don't see why it would require to "rebuild" your primary machine, but I don't know your configuration. I know that any sane configuration would only require to install dracut and modify a line in grub. Maybe a kernel rebuild. > * I've avoided it for ten years it was a grossly unnecessary > complexity for my systems. Now it sounds like it'll become a > necessity. Apparently. But is not "grossly" unnecessary: udev need it, and udev solves a kinda complicated problem. Maybe mdev can solve it in a simpler way. But again, I doubt it. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
