From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756558Ab2JFTKV (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Oct 2012 15:10:21 -0400 Received: from icebox.esperi.org.uk ([81.187.191.129]:53436 "EHLO mail.esperi.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755463Ab2JFTKQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Oct 2012 15:10:16 -0400 From: Nix To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh Cc: david@lang.hm, Emmanuel Benisty , Kurt H Maier , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: udev breakages - References: <20121004145022.GA73321@intma.in> <20121005214358.GA12736@khazad-dum.debian.net> Emacs: or perhaps you'd prefer Russian Roulette, after all? Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:09:54 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20121005214358.GA12736@khazad-dum.debian.net> (Henrique de Moraes Holschuh's message of "Fri, 5 Oct 2012 18:43:58 -0300") Message-ID: <87y5jjs9h9.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-DCC-STAT_FI_X86_64_VIRTUAL-Metrics: spindle 1245; Body=5 Fuz1=5 Fuz2=5 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5 Oct 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh told this: > On Fri, 05 Oct 2012, david@lang.hm wrote: >> >On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote: >> >>On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 07:27:01PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: >> >>>Al, that -><- close to volunteering for maintaining that FPOS kernel-side... >> >> >> >>This would be fantastic. >> > >> >And that would solve this very much worrying issue [1], quoting: >> >"(Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you >> >haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop >> >that support entirely.)" >> > >> >[1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html >> >> I think it's worth noting that even though udev 189 was recently >> released, the not-yet-released Ubuntu 10.10 is going to be including >> udev 175. > > So is Debian. I'm a bit surprised they didn't stick with 168, really. Even udev 175 requires a /usr mount in the initramfs, and devtmpfs (though the latter is easy to replace). The former is probably a good idea anyway. The latter... for any system other than the very largest, or embedded systems that must boot in a second or less, I can't see a benefit. -- NULL && (void)