Partial update of bootscripts

Bryan Kadzban bryan at kadzban.is-a-geek.net
Mon Jul 11 20:21:33 PDT 2011


Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> It actually probably makes sense to pull this out into its own
>> change? We'll need it with newer udev versions no matter what
>> happens to the rest (and maybe current udev versions; I'm not
>> sure).  Up to you though.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean.

Commit the udev_retry update as a separate revision in svn.  It's pretty
independent of the other changes being proposed.  Maybe that was the
plan already though.

>> /run is mounted read-write, yes -- that's the only reason these
>> rules files would have been successfully written there.  This whole
>> setup is here to catch the case where the rules are generated
>> before the *root* FS is mounted read-write (so /etc/udev/rules.d is
>> not writable).  And AFAIK the root FS can't be mounted read-write
>> before udevadm trigger happens, unless I'm missing something.
>> (Because the root FS's device node is not present.)
> 
> One purpose of the /run directory is to allow (eventually) / to be
> able to remain read only.  Things like mtab, blkid.tab, etc will
> migrate to /run.   I'd think dynamic udev rules would move there too.

Dynamic udev rules are weird.  The Debian guy who added them (IIRC)
still wants them, but the udev maintainers are pushing back on having
anything autogenerate rules like this.  (Mostly for NICs.)

They also want to force all the configuration back on the end user, and
force them to use a different namespace (not ethX), which works really
badly for headless systems (sigh; this is what happens when you only use
Fedora or Ubuntu, I guess).  The excuse for why this is acceptable is
"networkmanager doesn't care what the name is".  Sure, but the rest of
the world doesn't use networkmanager.  Anyway...

For CD burners, I'd *expect* (but don't know for sure) that it would be
best these days to use the /dev/disk/by-* symlinks anyway, so those may
become less of a problem.  But it's been a long time since I tried to
burn a CD; it's possible that the burning software these days requires a
device node, not a symlink.  Or something else equally dumb.

> I don't know why any rules would have to be delayed and that would
> mean that udev_retry would be unnecessary.

If alsactl is in /usr/sbin, and /usr is not on the root fs, then the
controlC* rule that we have will fail, since it won't be able to run
"alsactl restore".  Similarly for any other rules that get installed
that require binaries or other configuration (...usb-db, for instance,
although we don't install that) in /usr.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/attachments/20110711/b4b650a4/attachment.sig>


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list