On 2012-12-25, Dale wrote: > Nuno J. Silva wrote: >> On 2012-12-25, Bruce Hill wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 02:10:28PM +0200, Nuno J. Silva wrote: >>>> No, actually it doesn't. It just has the same kind of very generic claim >>>> that has been repeated several times in this thread (which is "why? >>>> because it won't work") and links to an article that explains why some >>>> udev rules would silently fail for all this time (for *years* now, I'd >>>> guess). >>>> >>>> The article does not describe a change introduced with 181, it describes >>>> what already happened with previous versions. I am not using >= 181 and >>>> I do see the issues the article mentions (it does not break here because >>>> I do not have a separate /usr, but I can see some rules that use stuff >>>> from /usr). >>> You have such an obvious lack of understanding, and problem comprehending >>> English, we just don't need to post to you anymore. ;) >> Please be my guest and explain me in which part of that article is it >> said that some behavior *introduced in udev-181* will break systems with >> a separate /usr. >> >> > > Quoting from Gentoo news item:
Which was exactly the thing I was commenting on above, ok. [...] > Now are you saying the Gentoo devs are lying to us? Careful now. Could > end up on a slippery slope and bump your head. That says anything BEFORE > 181 boots fine with a separate /usr, 181 or anything after does not. > Simple enough for you yet? It does indeed say that, but fails to provide any explanation on *why*. And, the exact point I made above is that the URL they give points to an explanation on something completely unrelated to the issue the news item is about. Further, that news item *claims* that booting with a separate /usr will break with >=udev-181. So far, *nobody* was able to explain why that would happen, not even that news item. The only thing people have been able to do on this mailing list regarding this news item is "here it is, that's why it will break". Allow me to exemplify the exchange you and others are making here 10: A: ">=udev-181 will break boots with separate /usr" 20: B: "Why?" 30: A: "Because >=udev-181 will break boots with separate /usr" 40: B: "But why?" 50: A: "Because we say so" 60: GOTO 20 I don't have any reason to believe anyone is lying, and that's why, instead of accusing people of lying, I decided to simply ask people here for some explanations. Now if the answers I've got here make me believe this whole udev mess is more about someone saying it will break and everybody blindly believing it does break. Regardless of whether it actually breaks or not. > > I might add, I have ALWAYS had a separate /usr. Darn near a decade > now. It has never failed to boot because /usr was on a separate > partition. NOT ONCE. Now I am told it is going to fail. Go figure. > Go try to tell me that it was broken all these years. Yea, right. Would it be too much trouble to ask you to share the output of egrep 'usb-db|pci-db|FROM_DATABASE|/usr' /*/udev/rules.d/* and the version of udev you're running? I'm curious to see. Of course that, if you don't have some packages installing their udev rules, you may not have the issue at all. But maybe you have, so why don't we give it a try? Also, if you actually read the linked URL, it does explain it won't fail to boot. You do realize these are two different issues here, right? One is people saying that udev-181 will fail to boot, other is the issue described on the URL linked on the news item, which is about stuff in /usr breaking udev rules, which has been around for a long time and will *silently* fail. I remind you that "silently fail" implies that your system will still boot, even if it is affected by the issue. > That's like telling me the Sun comes up in the west when I can see it > doesn't with my own two eyes. Good luck with that. Reminds me of > that"tell it to the hand" thing. ROFL -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
