[gentoo-dev] EKOPath/Path64 compiler ebuilds + support
Hi Recently a couple new ebuilds were added to the portage tree and I felt it's worthwhile to give a friendly heads up. So without further ado let me introduce EKOPath and Path64. EKOPath - This is a binary installer that comes from one of the nightly PathScale builds. The source to the compiler/debuger/libraries.. etc are available on github. It's meant as a convenience to new users and should be portable across many distributions. Path64 - This is the source build of the compiler that will warm your house in the winter. While not required I would generally recommend that you do a Release build. If you don't the compiler will be *slower* than mud. It may not be so bad if you're not building any C++ code, but you've been warned. - Documentation - We're working on it, but help is appreciated. Converting a 300 page user guide from $proprietary discontinued format to latex isn't fun. (Send me a private email if you're interested to help) Support - Our mailing lists are quiet, but most questions will get a response http://lists.pathscale.com/mailman/listinfo If you're on irc feel free to say hi or ask questions on freenode - #pathscale # Warning: The channel is generally quite friendly unless you say something stupid or piss off an OP -- Bug reports For now we're using github issues. # Yes it sucks and we'll get a jira instance setup some time in the future https://github.com/path64/compiler/issues/ We welcome any and all bug reports - performance regressions, ICE, incorrect results. etc. The best way to get your bug fixed is by having the smallest possible test case which reproduces the problem. We generally recommend the tool Delta for getting a good automatic start before hand reducing http://delta.tigris.org/ Why care? PathScale traditionally cared a lot about the performance for HPC and scientific codes. If you have some Fortran code I'd highly recommend you give it a try. C++ is getting a lot of improvements and we're aiming to take the lead before the end of the year. That leaves C and anything else which people really care about (OpenSSL, web servers, database.. etc) Try to build it, file good bug reports, tweak the flags for best performance and yell at us if we're not the fastest. I'm around if you have any questions or just generally need someone to yell at :) ./C @CTOPathScale
[gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on top of / before init is and has been broken with udev for a long time now[1][2][3] [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364235 [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove#Move_all_to_.2Fusr [3] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken Can we warn users about not doing the separate /usr mistake in the handbook?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on top of > / before init is and has been broken with udev for a long time now[1][2][3] > > [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364235 > [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove#Move_all_to_.2Fusr > [3] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken > > Can we warn users about not doing the separate /usr mistake in the handbook? My feeling is that we should still consider this a supported configuration, so any warning should be along the lines of "note that we're still having issues making this work properly so be careful for now." Or, better still explain how to configure the initramfs to mount /usr. I actually run this configuration without an initramfs and haven't had issues so far. If you want to run with a small root partition I don't see much alternative. Does the genkernel initramfs mount /usr currently? Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 10:27:27 +0300 Samuli Suominen wrote: > Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on top > of / before init is and has been broken with udev for a long time > now[1][2][3] > > [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364235 > [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove#Move_all_to_.2Fusr > [3] > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken > > Can we warn users about not doing the separate /usr mistake in the > handbook? It's important to consider the timeline here. Separate /usr was accidentally broken by a sudden increase in dependencies from base system packages to desktopy things. It was only later that certain people decided that "oh, separate /usr is a bad idea anyway", and they did so because they couldn't figure out how to fix the mess they'd caused. This is very much a case of carelessly letting the horse escape and then trying to convince everyone that no-one needs a horse anyway... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 11:46:00 +0100 as excerpted: > It's important to consider the timeline here. Separate /usr was > accidentally broken by a sudden increase in dependencies from base > system packages to desktopy things. It was only later that certain > people decided that "oh, separate /usr is a bad idea anyway", and they > did so because they couldn't figure out how to fix the mess they'd > caused. This is very much a case of carelessly letting the horse escape > and then trying to convince everyone that no-one needs a horse anyway... ++ -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
On 07/30/2011 01:46 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 10:27:27 +0300 > Samuli Suominen wrote: >> Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on top >> of / before init is and has been broken with udev for a long time >> now[1][2][3] >> >> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364235 >> [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove#Move_all_to_.2Fusr >> [3] >> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken >> >> Can we warn users about not doing the separate /usr mistake in the >> handbook? > > It's important to consider the timeline here. Separate /usr was > accidentally broken by a sudden increase in dependencies from base > system packages to desktopy things. It was only later that certain > people decided that "oh, separate /usr is a bad idea anyway", and they > did so because they couldn't figure out how to fix the mess they'd > caused. This is very much a case of carelessly letting the horse escape > and then trying to convince everyone that no-one needs a horse anyway... > Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How many users that might be? I dislike the documentation not being clear on separate /usr, that it should only be used if you *really* need it due to the potential problems I dislike the IUSE="+static" some packages are currently doing to workaround this, instead of moving the needed shared libs to / I dislike the idea of pciutils and usbutils database(s) in non-standard location in / to keep udev working I dislike the idea of moving libglib-2.0, libdbus-1, libdbus-glib-1, and couple of dozen more libs to / I dislike the idea of maintaining and keeping track of the files in / using files from /usr. Does any of the PMs have check for this, like NEEDED entries? I can imagine this getting past the maintainers easily otherwise Most likely still not seeing the full picture here, and just scratching the surface... Despite that, I don't have any strong opinion on any of this, just need to know if I should start moving the files over
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How > many users that might be? > > I dislike the documentation not being clear on separate /usr, that it > should only be used if you *really* need it due to the potential problems Well, I ended up that way from following the official documentation the better part of a decade ago: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-quickinstall.xml Sure, I guess I could try to move root to the lvm as well to expand it enough and switch over to genkernel. You know, maybe a way around all of this would be for all of the various distros and major FOSS packages to get together and come up with some kind of standard for what goes in what directory. Maybe we could call it something like the "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard." Then we don't have to argue on mailing lists about whether it is appropriate to rely on file in /usr during boot. It seems like the proper solution is for all packages in the tree to be FHS-compliant, either because we patched them and bug upstream about it, or because we exclude them. That said, there is little point if we're the only distro doing this. How many packages are we actually talking about? Is there any kind of consensus in the FOSS community beyond Gentoo that FHS has had its day? What is the policy for other distros? Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
Samuli Suominen schrieb: > > Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How > many users that might be? If you have / encrypted, then you can leave /usr unencrypted as it contains no secrets. Also /usr can remain mounted read-only most of the time, so there is a reduced chance of accidental corruption. I don't know the number of users who might want this, and I imagine it is difficult to count them. > I dislike the idea of moving libglib-2.0, libdbus-1, libdbus-glib-1, and > couple of dozen more libs to / If you say that /usr must be on the same filesystem as /, then there is no real reason to not just make a symlink /usr -> . Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
On 07/30/2011 05:28 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Samuli Suominen schrieb: >> >> Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How >> many users that might be? > > If you have / encrypted, then you can leave /usr unencrypted as it > contains no secrets. Also /usr can remain mounted read-only most of the > time, so there is a reduced chance of accidental corruption. > I don't know the number of users who might want this, and I imagine it > is difficult to count them. That is still possible, since separate /usr would still be an option if it's mounted from the initramfs before init. Quote from #gentoo-dev today: 11:39 <@aidecoe> dracut has module fstab-sys. You might check this out to mount additional stuff before switching to root.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > 11:39 <@aidecoe> dracut has module fstab-sys. You might check this out > to mount additional stuff before switching to root. If we want to make /usr required on boot we should build this capability into genkernel. Or, we should have genkernel invoke dracut, or just make dracut the official initramfs tool and document it accordingly. Or, at the very least we should update our lvm+raid howto to actually work in a supported fashion - probably some of the things above in the process. I'm not completely opposed to just ditching the FHS if its day has passed, but this isn't something we should consider lightly and we should at least document the proper way to configure a Gentoo system that has almost all of its data on lvm+raid. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
Excerpts from Rich Freeman's message of 2011-07-30 17:10:14 +0200: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Samuli Suominen > wrote: > > 11:39 <@aidecoe> dracut has module fstab-sys. You might check this > > out to mount additional stuff before switching to root. > > If we want to make /usr required on boot we should build this > capability into genkernel. Or, we should have genkernel invoke > dracut, It's on my responsibilities list and a progress has been made. I'm currently overloaded since few months, but it is eventually going to be. (It's not so simple as just invoking dracut. Integration is a bit more complicated.) > or just make dracut the official initramfs tool and document > it accordingly. It will take some time to finally integrate dracut into genkernel, but making dracut more official tool until this time is possible to accomplish in the nearest future. Although first we need to introduce /run into stable baselayout. If you all decide on the matter and the way through dracut is chosen, just let me know and I'll try stabilize and write docs about dracut as soon as possible. Despite it's easily possible to workaround the problem with initramfs, it's really bad issue that the world is breaking FHS instead of designing something new. (Yes, I know it's so big deal that's impossible… but… doh…) -- Amadeusz Żołnowski PGP key fpr: C700 CEDE 0C18 212E 49DA 4653 F013 4531 E1DB FAB5 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
On Saturday 30 July 2011 14:55:23 Samuli Suominen wrote: > Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How > many users that might be? From /etc/conf.d/fsck, seems like a reason to keep the / FS as small as possible to reduce the amount of time spent waiting during boot: # fsck_shutdown causes fsck to trigger during shutdown as well as startup. # The end result of this is that if any periodic non-root filesystem checks are # scheduled, under normal circumstances the actual check will happen during # shutdown rather than at next boot. # This is useful when periodic filesystem checks are causing undesirable # delays at startup, but such delays at shutdown are acceptable. fsck_shutdown="YES"
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1:20 PM, David Leverton wrote: > On Saturday 30 July 2011 14:55:23 Samuli Suominen wrote: >> Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How >> many users that might be? > > From /etc/conf.d/fsck, seems like a reason to keep the / FS as small as > possible to reduce the amount of time spent waiting during boot: Well, that only really has a benefit if the system can do something useful between the time that root is mounted and /usr is mounted, which is probably a "no." In any case, I see this whole situation as being a bit of laziness - individual packages are just breaking the rules rather than trying to reform them. However, if this is the way of the universe I'd be fine with just updating our docs and tools to handle /usr mounted by initramfs. Almost all other distros use initramfs 100% of the time - Gentoo is a bit unusual in that I'd say a good chunk of our users don't use one at all. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 13:38:55 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > > From /etc/conf.d/fsck, seems like a reason to keep the / FS as > > small as possible to reduce the amount of time spent waiting during > > boot: > > Well, that only really has a benefit if the system can do something > useful between the time that root is mounted and /usr is mounted, > which is probably a "no." Bring up networking? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
On Saturday 30 July 2011 18:38:55 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1:20 PM, David Leverton > > From /etc/conf.d/fsck, seems like a reason to keep the / FS as small as > > possible to reduce the amount of time spent waiting during boot: > Well, that only really has a benefit if the system can do something > useful between the time that root is mounted and /usr is mounted, > which is probably a "no." Not quite sure what you mean there... I meant that OpenRC lets you move non-/ fscks to shutdown, but you still have to wait for / to be checked during boot whenever it's due, so it's good to have it small so you don't have to wait too long.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:28:54 +0200 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Samuli Suominen schrieb: > > > > Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How > > many users that might be? > > If you have / encrypted, then you can leave /usr unencrypted as it > contains no secrets. That's doing things upside-down. You should encrypt the data needing encryption, not the other way. This usually means /home which is separate more often than /usr. > Also /usr can remain mounted read-only most of the time, so there is > a reduced chance of accidental corruption. I don't know the number of > users who might want this, and I imagine it is difficult to count > them. Is this actually possible now? Last time I tried doing things like this X11 failed to set keyboard mappings trying to store compiled ones in /usr. > > I dislike the idea of moving libglib-2.0, libdbus-1, > > libdbus-glib-1, and couple of dozen more libs to / > > If you say that /usr must be on the same filesystem as /, then there > is no real reason to not just make a symlink /usr -> . That's a joke, right? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
Certainly a good point - you don't want to spoil a SSD-RAID-set's performance by encrypting /usr but there is surely a strong need to encrypt /etc and thus /, which has a rather neglectable impact on performance of a system. I'd even say that in a lot of environments splitting / and /usr is more common and useful than putting them on the same FS. Just accepting the need to have / and /usr on the same FS because packages are severly broken and badly designed should not really an argument to consider. Kind Regards -Sven P.S.: In this respect I second Ciaran's POV and what he said. On Sat, July 30, 2011 16:28, ChÃ-Thanh Christopher Nguyá» n wrote: > Samuli Suominen schrieb: >> >> Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How >> many users that might be? > > If you have / encrypted, then you can leave /usr unencrypted as it > contains no secrets. Also /usr can remain mounted read-only most of the > time, so there is a reduced chance of accidental corruption. > I don't know the number of users who might want this, and I imagine it > is difficult to count them. > > > Best regards, > ChÃ-Thanh Christopher Nguyá» n > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:57:14AM +, Duncan wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 11:46:00 +0100 as excerpted: > > > It's important to consider the timeline here. Separate /usr was > > accidentally broken by a sudden increase in dependencies from base > > system packages to desktopy things. It was only later that certain > > people decided that "oh, separate /usr is a bad idea anyway", and they > > did so because they couldn't figure out how to fix the mess they'd > > caused. This is very much a case of carelessly letting the horse escape > > and then trying to convince everyone that no-one needs a horse anyway... > > ++ I tend to agree with this due to the reasons posted in this thread. I think we should be very cautious about making a change that requires an initrd just for separate /usr. I'm a co maintainer of udev, so let me see if I can come up with something when the next udev is released. I want to try to work out a way to do this in udev-postmount. William pgpcnYfwoqMXL.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] RFC: Changing portage's unpack behavior for non-tar files compressed with gz|Z|z|bz2|bz|lzma|xz extensions
Hi everyone,
We've found that portage's unpack behavior is inconsistent for non-tar
files compressed with gz|Z|z|bz2|bz|lzma|xz extensions [1]. Currently,
it emulates tools like gunzip and bunzip2, unpacking them to the
directory of the source file.
For consistency, we could make it unpack them to cwd instead. PMS
already specifies that the files should unpack to cwd, so this change
will bring portage and PMS into agreement. Hopefully it won't break too
many ebuilds, and we can always add compatibility code to ebuilds, like
this:
[[ ! -f ${x} ]] && { mv ${x}.gz ./ || die "mv failed"; }
Is anyone opposed to making this change?
[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=376741
--
Thanks,
Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
Michał Górny schrieb: >> If you have / encrypted, then you can leave /usr unencrypted as it >> contains no secrets. > > That's doing things upside-down. You should encrypt the data needing > encryption, not the other way. This usually means /home which is > separate more often than /usr. That is precisely what is done here. On a typical system I assume that secrets can be in /etc, /home and /var. Encrypting /usr might not give you a security gain and just consume resources. >> Also /usr can remain mounted read-only most of the time, so there is >> a reduced chance of accidental corruption. I don't know the number of >> users who might want this, and I imagine it is difficult to count >> them. > > Is this actually possible now? Last time I tried doing things like this > X11 failed to set keyboard mappings trying to store compiled ones > in /usr. I have not seen any machine running X have read-only /usr yet. Maybe it is something that could be investigated. If I have time, I'll experiment what happens when I do a read-only bind-mount of /usr on itself. >> If you say that /usr must be on the same filesystem as /, then there >> is no real reason to not just make a symlink /usr -> . > > That's a joke, right? There are folks who seriously take this into consideration. I don't necessarily agree with them, though. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:27:27AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: > Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on top of > / before init is and has been broken with udev for a long time now[1][2][3] > > [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364235 > [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove#Move_all_to_.2Fusr > [3] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken > > Can we warn users about not doing the separate /usr mistake in the handbook? There are actually two options for us according to upstream. One is the one you are talking about -- mounting /usr from an initramfs before / is mounted. The other is to mount local file systems, if setups are simple enough, before we start udev. I could set this one up easily enough just by moving localmount to the boot runlevel. Can we discuss both options? William pgpN2p3tiRKtT.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
Rich Freeman posted on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 10:28:56 -0400 as excerpted: > Is there any kind of > consensus in the FOSS community beyond Gentoo that FHS has had its > day? What is the policy for other distros? >From what I see on the general blogs, yes, /current/ FHS has had its day. HOWEVER, one thing the systemd hubbub /has/ been effective in doing is getting discussion on the topic going again, and there's a new version in the works (with /run suggested, and presumably updated to include /sys, etc), instead of simply ignoring the problem and working around it with distro-specific solutions or non-solutions as the case may be, which was the situation for rather too long. What I do /not/ know is the status of the update, or an ETA on a final version. But if there's no one already, it'd be useful to have at least one gentoo rep in on the discussions, for sure. Otherwise, the new FHS could well be defined by binary distros and assume systemd, either in FHS itself or in the LSB layer above, just as the LSB standardized on rpm. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 30-07-2011 22:17, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:27:27AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on >> top of / before init is and has been broken with udev for a long >> time now[1][2][3] >> >> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364235 [2] >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove#Move_all_to_.2Fusr >> [3] >> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken >> >> >> Can we warn users about not doing the separate /usr mistake in the handbook? > > There are actually two options for us according to upstream. One is > the one you are talking about -- mounting /usr from an initramfs > before / is mounted. The other is to mount local file systems, if > setups are simple enough, before we start udev. I could set this one > up easily enough just by moving localmount to the boot runlevel. > > Can we discuss both options? If there's any option that allows the use of a separate /usr partition without an initramfs, then let's explore it. I don't feel like having to use an initramfs just because I want a small / without /usr on it. As others have said, having /usr as a separate partition worked for years until some people started trying to "shove" bloat on everyone's systems and then they want us to believe that having /usr as a separate partition is stupid. > William - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJONKjzAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPLjEP/i8oGv6aP3RH1SokVG5llfuq j0pckRZOTcqcHl4CM7ZfvYvixLR8XZK1ZSRk3DnysxUQCrI6fNvYr1/8EqJUIB9j wM5XRshkyOwh8VpwdTdd/y0XhcE1MaAqwXOXOO2FrnuH6cd6RR0YFbeVVbL62kni PdTV+DNY2Wbo1fn8xAY0lRANMqghNXPGBK4/5kYuwCBME1xaV/cRkbDrtUnznWbq dsCshhm5m2ertOHuRZzDQfpUOlS0J5RiE8zvAqyasC1stT3TcegcnTL/M8zxOoF8 jxcPJCIsVx/WfKrDXT9qgSOo9/E2X182dLN/6br2prV/Yvjb0nMcC1orsueHDnVo WHvYCEZ7ZlLIMw6boiWycqzRcxSrz24XQLufyWwcYUpWdxHmToNPW6dOQvM+ZcNz QAOs3fAR7NinGHMRkl9AehCbK1PiKBBmiZU/KXcCffBabWsUuwWEwhxz0BNGvLgZ 62NgPM1HbF3+azq+mqre2tp2mu3s4cVUiu12Zf5SBXTJP98FCIX9Q+vpypoQGhjv R1JtlozfOunPYnLaEBT0pz/Rev9HrdxIpslKcQug6N3u/1Z0+COUSEatr9xJDSOb fXD6c+Cm4zFcJx1hiZ2+qyidhcX57uC+2Y6GIVGhHKOBwJSFna0DGsQw8iMbNk8Y OQ2x6i+JYAqyUKZdJLP3 =bxvJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
On 07/31/2011 03:59 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > On 30-07-2011 22:17, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:27:27AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: >>> Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on >>> top of / before init is and has been broken with udev for a long >>> time now[1][2][3] >>> >>> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364235 [2] >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove#Move_all_to_.2Fusr >>> [3] >>> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken >>> >>> >>> > Can we warn users about not doing the separate /usr mistake in the handbook? > >> There are actually two options for us according to upstream. One is >> the one you are talking about -- mounting /usr from an initramfs >> before / is mounted. The other is to mount local file systems, if >> setups are simple enough, before we start udev. I could set this one >> up easily enough just by moving localmount to the boot runlevel. > >> Can we discuss both options? > If there's any option that allows the use of a separate /usr partition > without an initramfs, then let's explore it. I don't feel like having to > use an initramfs just because I want a small / without /usr on it. The message is really missing all the context without explanation for WHY you want it.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Warn users not to do separate /usr partition without proper initramfs in the handbook?
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 04:40:33AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 07/31/2011 03:59 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > > On 30-07-2011 22:17, William Hubbs wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:27:27AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: > >>> Since running separate /usr without mounting it from initramfs on > >>> top of / before init is and has been broken with udev for a long > >>> time now[1][2][3] > >>> > >>> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364235 [2] > >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove#Move_all_to_.2Fusr > >>> [3] > >>> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Can we warn users about not doing the separate /usr mistake in the handbook? > > > >> There are actually two options for us according to upstream. One is > >> the one you are talking about -- mounting /usr from an initramfs > >> before / is mounted. The other is to mount local file systems, if > >> setups are simple enough, before we start udev. I could set this one > >> up easily enough just by moving localmount to the boot runlevel. > > > >> Can we discuss both options? > > If there's any option that allows the use of a separate /usr partition > > without an initramfs, then let's explore it. I don't feel like having to > > use an initramfs just because I want a small / without /usr on it. > > The message is really missing all the context without explanation for > WHY you want it. Here is a good argument for supporting this. http://tldp.org/LDP/lame/LAME/linux-admin-made-easy/install-partitioning.html You can hose your system easier with one big file system with / and /usr combined than you can with multiple partitions. William pgpeValFVSV3M.pgp Description: PGP signature
