[Mageia-dev] Please test: initscripts+systemd in updates_testing

[Thomas Backlund]

Michael Scherer skrev 31.10.2011 18:07:
> Le dimanche 30 octobre 2011 à 14:19 +0200, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
>>
>> I'm saying moving the stuff that is _really_ needed, not based on "udev
>> might run"...
>>
>> well, thinking some more on it I guess the real design flaw (not systemd
>> specific) is using all of udev in init. Init should not care about more
>> than getting disc access (and probably network for pxe  boots)
>
> That's the point that Lennart make, ie :
> "we used to have / to mount all partition and /usr to be mounted, now,
> we have initramfs to mount /, and then / to mount /usr, so it would be
> simpler to merge / and /usr"
>

-ENOTCONVINCED

So why merge / and /usr and kill a usable feature?

Just have initramfs mount / and /usr, no need to merge.


> So that's simple. For stuff needed for initial boot, we have initrd, for
> the rest, that's /usr/
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-devel/msg158642.html
>

-ESTILLNOTCONVINCED


>> Then we wouldn't have to worry about "what udev might run" and could
>> keep a very clean /
>>
>>>> Well, it _is_ idiotic if it breaks working setups / possibilities to
>>>> finetune systems.
>>>
>>> It depends on your definition of "working". Sure if you specifically
>>> work around the know limitations of the design then you may get a
>>> bootable system, which you could classify as working, but I wouldn't say
>>> this is a robust base. Just a house of cards waiting for the next
>>> failure. I'd rather try and address the problems properly and be frank
>>> about it in the discussions.
>>>
>>
>> Well, it has worked 24/7 for servers for atleast last 15 years for
>> servers I maintain, so I'd say that is pretty robust.
>
> That's also what people say about manually compiling software in
> solaris, and I think they are wrong, so that's not really a compeling
> argument to my eyes.

Yeah, well that's your opinion.

> In fact "using packages prevent me from finetuning my software" is also
> a common and recuring theme from the same people ( well, slightly less
> recuring nowadays as I didn't meet people telling me so since gentoo and
> slackware usage slightly dropped ).
>
> We have unix server since 1970, that doesn't mean the assumption that
> lead to some design decision are not open to be revisited.

I dont mind people revisiting design decisions, but breaking working 
setups sucks bigtime.

But I guess that's the development trend nowdays: "I cant be bothered to 
fix things properly so I just call it "depreceated"... and go ahead
and break things just as I like"

Oh well, I guess it's time to start blacklisting some rpms to ensure
things keep working as they are intended.

--
Thomas