On 10/17/2011 01:59 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Sunday, October 16, 2011 12:33:51 PM Zac Medico wrote:
>> If those LVM volumes require userspace tools to mount, then I think it's
>> perfectly reasonable to expect them to use either an initramfs or a
>> simple linuxrc approach [1] to ensure that
On Sunday, October 16, 2011 12:33:51 PM Zac Medico wrote:
> On 10/16/2011 06:07 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> I don't think it's a good idea for Gentoo to encourage users to have
> >> /usr on a separate partition. We should probably remove the
On 10/16/2011 06:07 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>
>> I don't think it's a good idea for Gentoo to encourage users to have
>> /usr on a separate partition. We should probably remove the separate
>> /usr partition from "Code Listing 2.1: Filesystem u
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40:23AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea
> that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical
> parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm
> not a
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>
> I don't think it's a good idea for Gentoo to encourage users to have
> /usr on a separate partition. We should probably remove the separate
> /usr partition from "Code Listing 2.1: Filesystem usage example" in our
> handbook:
>
> http://www.ge
On 10/15/2011 01:57 AM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On 15.10.2011 10:42, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
>> in what way will exherbo deal wih this mess? Are there any plans?
>
> We don't support /usr on a separate partition. People can, of course, do
> that and I'll point them to dracut for creating an
On Saturday, October 15, 2011 09:29:54 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:06:03 -0400
>
> "Walter Dnes" wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:14:31AM -0400, Olivier Cr?te wrote
> >
> > > We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to
> > > make a compelling platfor
On Saturday 15 October 2011 03:29:54 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:06:03 -0400 "Walter Dnes" wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:14:31AM -0400, Olivier Cr?te wrote
> > > We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to
> > > make a compelling platform that "just wor
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
>> On 15.10.2011 10:42, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
>>> in what way will exherbo deal wih this mess? Are there any plans?
>>
>> We don't support /usr on a separate partition. Pe
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On 15.10.2011 10:42, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
>> in what way will exherbo deal wih this mess? Are there any plans?
>
> We don't support /usr on a separate partition. People can, of course, do
> that and I'll point them to dracut for cr
On 15.10.2011 10:42, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> in what way will exherbo deal wih this mess? Are there any plans?
We don't support /usr on a separate partition. People can, of course, do
that and I'll point them to dracut for creating an initramfs.
Or they can do whatever works for them. Peo
Sorry for being completely OT now, will be the only mail on this from my
side...
On Thursday, 13. October 2011 18:05:47 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:14:31 -0400
>
> Olivier Crête wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 18:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:49:19 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530
> Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop
> > trying to impose your workflow on the rest of the world.
>
> Isn't the point here that the desktop / GN
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:06:03 -0400
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:14:31AM -0400, Olivier Cr?te wrote
>
> > We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to
> > make a compelling platform that "just works", forcing users to tell
> > the computer something the co
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:14:31AM -0400, Olivier Cr?te wrote
> We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a
> compelling platform that "just works", forcing users to tell the
> computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and
> stupid.
Eventually,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:12:52AM -0400, Thomas Kahle wrote
>
>> https://www.xkcd.com/963/
>
> Xorg --configure
Funny, I haven't used a /etc/X11/Xorg.conf in years:
negra ~ # ll /etc/X11/
total 20
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Sep 12 17:49 ap
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:12:52AM -0400, Thomas Kahle wrote
> https://www.xkcd.com/963/
Xorg --configure
--
Walter Dnes
On Thursday 13 October 2011 14:55:45 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote:
> >> While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly
> >> haven't been seen any effort to actu
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote:
>>> While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly
>>> haven't been seen any effort to actually
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote:
>> While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly
>> haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the
>> existing framework. For example, i
On 10/13/2011 08:02 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote:
>> While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly
>> haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the
>> existing framework. For example, if someone c
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:14:31 -0400
Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 18:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530
> > Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > > Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop
> > > trying to impose your workflow on the
On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote:
> While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly
> haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the
> existing framework. For example, if someone cares enough, why not
> write a wrapper script to tr
On 13 October 2011 20:58, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 2011/10/13 Olivier Crête :
>> We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a
>> compelling platform that "just works", forcing users to tell the
>> computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and
>> stupi
On Thursday 13 October 2011 11:17:07 Olivier Crête wrote:
> That said, we, the GNOME upstream, think that having a separate /usr is
> a completely stupid idea.
considering GNOME's track record wrt what they think is a "good idea" in the
UI land, i'm not sure this statement is terribly compelling
2011/10/13 Olivier Crête :
> We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a
> compelling platform that "just works", forcing users to tell the
> computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and
> stupid.
I'd also look at it another way. It is a lot eas
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 00:40 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea
> that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical
> parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm
> not a program
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 18:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530
> Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying
> > to impose your workflow on the rest of the world.
>
> Isn't the point here that the desktop / GNOM
On 09:09 Wed 12 Oct 2011, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > Goodbye desktop users then.
> >
> > We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and
> > required udev anyway) is done through udev directly.
>
> My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I
> always had
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 09:09:24AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:32:05AM +, Nathan Phillip Brink wrote
>
> > You can already try out what using mdev instead of udev is like in
> > Gentoo. Just add `sys-apps/busybox mdev' to /etc/portage/package.use,
> > remerge busybox
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 09:26:12 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > Forking udev is probably not an option. The udev lead developer is a
> > Redhat employee, and his direction seems to be to drag everybody in
> > Redhat's direction. Our community
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530
> Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying
>> to impose your workflow on the rest of the world.
>
> Isn't the point here that the desktop / GNOME OS
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying
> to impose your workflow on the rest of the world.
Isn't the point here that the desktop / GNOME OS guys are trying to
impose their deep integration, tight coupling
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> Goodbye desktop users then.
>>
>> We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and
>> required udev anyway) is done through udev directly.
>
> My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I
> always ha
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:09:49 -0400
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
> > Goodbye desktop users then.
> >
> > We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and
> > required udev anyway) is done through udev directly.
>
> My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> Goodbye desktop users then.
>>
>> We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and
>> required udev anyway) is done through udev directly.
>
> My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I
> always ha
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> Forking udev is probably not an option. The udev lead developer is a
> Redhat employee, and his direction seems to be to drag everybody in
> Redhat's direction. Our community doesn't have Redhat's billions.
We should note that RedHat is al
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:05:15PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote
> Are you aware of the simple linuxrc approach that I suggested here?
>
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_20749880f5bc5feda141488498729fe8.xml
Thanks for the pointer. I've got a spare box kicking around that I'll
try this on
> Goodbye desktop users then.
>
> We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and
> required udev anyway) is done through udev directly.
My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I
always had sys-apps/hal and sys-apps/dbus in /etc/portage/package.mas
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:32:05AM +, Nathan Phillip Brink wrote
> You can already try out what using mdev instead of udev is like in
> Gentoo. Just add `sys-apps/busybox mdev' to /etc/portage/package.use,
> remerge busybox. You must be sure to be using busybox-1.92.2 or later
> for bug #83301
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/12/11 05:40, Walter Dnes wrote:
> Hi all
>
> The other option is to drop udev entirely. As an example, I
> suggest looking at Alpine Linux http://alpinelinux.org/ It's a
> lightweight server-oriented distro. It uses busybox's mdev instead
>
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:40:23 -0400
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
> The other option is to drop udev entirely. As an example, I suggest
> looking at Alpine Linux http://alpinelinux.org/ It's a lightweight
> server-oriented distro. It uses busybox's mdev instead of udev, and
> some other mdev substitut
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40:23AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea
> that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical
> parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm
> not a
On 10/11/2011 09:40 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea
> that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical
> parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm
> not a programmer, let al
44 matches
Mail list logo
