Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 22:56:07 schrieb Alan McKinnon: > On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:40:07 +0200 > > Michael Schreckenbauer <grim...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 22:05:36 schrieb Alan McKinnon: > > > On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:11:04 +0200 > > > > > > Michael Schreckenbauer <grim...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > > Then design the correct solution and implement it. If it's > > > > > technically sound, it will prevail. I think it's a rather > > > > > complicated problem with a non trivial solution, but the > > > > > code is > > > > > there if you feel like give it a try. > > > > > > > > Where did I write, that I am in the position to write such a > > > > beast? I only take the freedom to name this a design flaw in > > > > udev. > > > > It needs things from userspace, which are not yet available at > > > > the > > > > point it requests them. An initramsfs is a workaround for this, > > > > not a proper fix. > > > > > > If that is the argument from the udev devs you just quoted, then I > > > do not understand it at all. > > > > It's my understanding, that this is their point. > > > > > Why can there not be a restriction that udev may only run code in > > > the traditional / space (i.e. it will not attempt to run code in > > > the /usr or /home spaces)? > > > > Yes. I really wonder, why we have /bin, /sbin and /lib > > The / partition may contain, at a absolute minimum, only that software > required to boot and start userspace. So you find mount, fsck and sh in > there. > <snip>
Thanks, Alan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question ;) Best, Michael
