Hi Alan, On Tuesday, 13. September 2011 14:40:36 Alan Mackenzie wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 07:50:13PM +0200, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > > > On Monday, 12. September 2011 17:17:37 Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > > Hi, Michael. > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:33:34PM +0200, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: > > > > Hi Alan, > > > > > > Well, I'm a hacker. udev is free source, therefore fair game. I > > > don't > > > intend to put up with this nonsense without a fight. As far as I > > > can > > > make out, this is just one guy, Kay Sievers, who's on a power trip. > > > Are there any indications at all that he actually talked to anybody > > > in the wide world before making such a far reaching decision? > > > On my current system, udev (164-r2) works without an earlily loaded > > > /usr. Seemingly, later versions don't. That was why I was asking > > > for somebody to identify one of these later versions for me. > > > > it works for you, because your udev-rules need nothing from /usr/* > > It's *not* udev requiring /usr, it's the scripts triggered by the rules. > > Ah. OK. Maybe I've misunderstood the whole thing. Could it be that > there's no explicit requirement for early mounting of /usr, providing one > has the discipline to keep everything needed for booting in the / > partition?
I think so. But you will run an unsupported config afaict. Another point is, that baselayout might change, iff gentoo follows fedora. Afaik fedora wants /bin, /sbin and /lib to be symlinks to /usr/* and keep them only for "legacy reasons". > > > > Fixing udev to continue working with separate /usr is far from > > > > trivial imo. Changing some paths is not the way to go for sure. > > > > > > Maybe, maybe not. > > > > No, I wrote "for sure", because I *know* this. > > Sorry about that. No problem. Sorry for the tone, too. Sounded ruder than it was meant. Best, Michael
