[opensuse-factory] Proposal for 12.2, move all binaries under /usr
Hi all, As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora. Here's the details as to why this is a good thing to do, and what is involved in it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove The first packages implementing this have already started to land in Fedora's version of Factory. Before you get worried, there will be symlinks back to /bin and /sbin for those scripts expecting things to be in those locations. We can use the Fedora patches for almost all of this, they are all published at: http://harald.fedorapeople.org/downloads/usrmove/ and a number of upstream projects are already moving their releases over to this as well, which will make things easier. If there are no major objections, I'll start working on Base:system in December. thanks, greg k-h p.s. Please, before you respond, read the link above and all of the discussion about it and don't repeat the same questions that the link already answers. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 24/11/11 00:51, Greg KH wrote:
If there are no major objections, I'll start working on Base:system in December.
+1, This is one of the baby steps to clean up the huge non-sense mess we have ..count me in for the task as well ;-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 24.11.2011 04:51, Greg KH wrote:
Hi all,
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora.
Here's the details as to why this is a good thing to do, and what is involved in it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
Ha, so you are also part of the evil conspiracy that wants to help redhat to destroy our distribution !!1!!11!eleven! Just kidding :-) I'm all for it, but it would be helpful to have somehting to require ("aaa_base > $MAGICVERSION" ?) to make sure directories like /usr/lib/firmware etc. are already there. And maybe something to %if 0%{?foobar} to enable packages to still be built for old distributions. Maybe just defining a special prefix so that the filelist becomes %{_newusr}/lib/firmware/* instead of /lib/firmware/* Once something like this is in place, all my packages will be moved a day later. -- Stefan Seyfried "Dispatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body!" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 07:48:19AM +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
On 24.11.2011 04:51, Greg KH wrote:
Hi all,
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora.
Here's the details as to why this is a good thing to do, and what is involved in it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
Ha, so you are also part of the evil conspiracy that wants to help redhat to destroy our distribution !!1!!11!eleven!
Just kidding :-)
I'm all for it, but it would be helpful to have somehting to require ("aaa_base > $MAGICVERSION" ?) to make sure directories like /usr/lib/firmware etc. are already there. And maybe something to %if 0%{?foobar} to enable packages to still be built for old distributions. Maybe just defining a special prefix so that the filelist becomes
%{_newusr}/lib/firmware/*
instead of
/lib/firmware/*
Ah, nice idea, that might make things easier, I'll look into it, thanks. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 07:51:02PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
Hi all,
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora.
That makes a lot of sense IMO. Thanks for bringing this up, Greg. Petr -- Petr Uzel IRC: ptr_uzl @ freenode -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 08:30 +0100, Petr Uzel wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 07:51:02PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
Hi all,
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora.
That makes a lot of sense IMO. Thanks for bringing this up, Greg.
+1 Good to clean such things up. But to avoid rants (/run) on either lists, glue a post-it reminder to your screen, that it must be explicitly mentioned in the release notes hw
On Thursday, November 24, 2011 9:32 AM, "Hans Witvliet"
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 08:30 +0100, Petr Uzel wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 07:51:02PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
Hi all,
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora.
That makes a lot of sense IMO. Thanks for bringing this up, Greg.
+1
Good to clean such things up. But to avoid rants (/run) on either lists, glue a post-it reminder to your screen, that it must be explicitly mentioned in the release notes
+1 This is a good idea but needs to be well documented. This will be interesting to test in a few months. Tim -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thursday, November 24, 2011 09:32:25 AM Hans Witvliet wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 08:30 +0100, Petr Uzel wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 07:51:02PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
Hi all,
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora.
That makes a lot of sense IMO. Thanks for bringing this up, Greg.
+1
Good to clean such things up. But to avoid rants (/run) on either lists, glue a post-it reminder to your screen, that it must be explicitly mentioned in the release notes
hw That attachemtn complained about no instance of xfce panel being found. WTF? -- Roger Luedecke openSUSE Ambassador Ind. Repairs and Consulting **Looking for a C++ etc. mentor*** -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Le 24/11/2011 04:51, Greg KH a écrit :
Hi all,
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora.
I've no opinion on this this post (also copied to marketting) only to say that if the final decision is made to do this shift, and for any such decision we should have some way to note it for future use in release notes - wiki page or similar. thanks jdd -- http://www.dodin.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Greg KH wrote:
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora. [...] If there are no major objections, I'll start working on Base:system in December.
This would be really massive and invasive change. Could you try this out in a branch first before bothering packagers, please? The modifications needed are most likely not just simple spec file changes even if it may seem so in the first place. Esp the update case seems underestimated to me. Also keep in mind that Factory must still be able to bootstrap itself during the transition. Has anyone considered modifying rpm to transparently take care of the relocation? cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
At Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:48:50 +0100, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora. [...] If there are no major objections, I'll start working on Base:system in December.
This would be really massive and invasive change. Could you try this out in a branch first before bothering packagers, please? The modifications needed are most likely not just simple spec file changes even if it may seem so in the first place. Esp the update case seems underestimated to me. Also keep in mind that Factory must still be able to bootstrap itself during the transition. Has anyone considered modifying rpm to transparently take care of the relocation?
It's my concern when I read the post, too. The idea itself sounds nice, but I foresee many problems with this action. Actually two things I thought of immediately: - Updates Can rpm replace a directory into a symlink when the directory isn't empty? That is, when something is left in /lib/* (a left-over of temporary file or some wild non-distro packages), /lib can't be linked to /usr/lib yet. So, it'll be a mixed state without /usr/lib symlink fallback. Maybe more problem would be /bin -> /usr/bin, because the path might be set in shebang. When you update bash, it's placed to /usr/bin, but /bin -> /usr/bin symlink still doesn't exist. What happens if you run a shell script of the old (still not updated) package? And, can Tumbleweed handle this mess smoothly? - The spec file rewrites Many spec files contain the hard-coded /lib, /bin or /sbin. Can we use this as is? Or if the change is needed, can we provide a macro for sharing the spec for different versions? thanks, Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:32:08AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:48:50 +0100, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora. [...] If there are no major objections, I'll start working on Base:system in December.
This would be really massive and invasive change. Could you try this out in a branch first before bothering packagers, please? The modifications needed are most likely not just simple spec file changes even if it may seem so in the first place. Esp the update case seems underestimated to me. Also keep in mind that Factory must still be able to bootstrap itself during the transition. Has anyone considered modifying rpm to transparently take care of the relocation?
It's my concern when I read the post, too. The idea itself sounds nice, but I foresee many problems with this action.
Actually two things I thought of immediately:
- Updates Can rpm replace a directory into a symlink when the directory isn't empty? That is, when something is left in /lib/* (a left-over of temporary file or some wild non-distro packages), /lib can't be linked to /usr/lib yet. So, it'll be a mixed state without /usr/lib symlink fallback.
The filesystem package will handle this, I'm working with the Red Hat people as they just solved this very problem, so yes, this will be taken care of.
Maybe more problem would be /bin -> /usr/bin, because the path might be set in shebang. When you update bash, it's placed to /usr/bin, but /bin -> /usr/bin symlink still doesn't exist. What happens if you run a shell script of the old (still not updated) package?
I think the symlink pointing from /bin to /usr/bin should handle this, why would the link not be there anymore?
And, can Tumbleweed handle this mess smoothly?
It better, I'll be testing to ensure this works properly :)
- The spec file rewrites Many spec files contain the hard-coded /lib, /bin or /sbin. Can we use this as is? Or if the change is needed, can we provide a macro for sharing the spec for different versions?
The spec files look like they need to be rewritten. First glance, it "only" looks to be about 250 or so, again, most of this work is already done for us in the link I posted. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
At Thu, 24 Nov 2011 12:05:31 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:32:08AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:48:50 +0100, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora. [...] If there are no major objections, I'll start working on Base:system in December.
This would be really massive and invasive change. Could you try this out in a branch first before bothering packagers, please? The modifications needed are most likely not just simple spec file changes even if it may seem so in the first place. Esp the update case seems underestimated to me. Also keep in mind that Factory must still be able to bootstrap itself during the transition. Has anyone considered modifying rpm to transparently take care of the relocation?
It's my concern when I read the post, too. The idea itself sounds nice, but I foresee many problems with this action.
Actually two things I thought of immediately:
- Updates Can rpm replace a directory into a symlink when the directory isn't empty? That is, when something is left in /lib/* (a left-over of temporary file or some wild non-distro packages), /lib can't be linked to /usr/lib yet. So, it'll be a mixed state without /usr/lib symlink fallback.
The filesystem package will handle this, I'm working with the Red Hat people as they just solved this very problem, so yes, this will be taken care of.
So, filesystem package will do it by some post script or such? I can imagine that it contains /lib, /bin, etc as %ghost, and copy all existing ones (cleverly with taking hard-links into accounts) to /usr/ in %post. Any other methods may break something, I guess.
Maybe more problem would be /bin -> /usr/bin, because the path might be set in shebang. When you update bash, it's placed to /usr/bin, but /bin -> /usr/bin symlink still doesn't exist. What happens if you run a shell script of the old (still not updated) package?
I think the symlink pointing from /bin to /usr/bin should handle this, why would the link not be there anymore?
One problem is that this filesystem.rpm update becomes to a high dependency. When bash.rpm is updated with the new location, and if user updates bash.rpm before filesystem.rpm, this will break badly.
And, can Tumbleweed handle this mess smoothly?
It better, I'll be testing to ensure this works properly :)
- The spec file rewrites Many spec files contain the hard-coded /lib, /bin or /sbin. Can we use this as is? Or if the change is needed, can we provide a macro for sharing the spec for different versions?
The spec files look like they need to be rewritten. First glance, it "only" looks to be about 250 or so, again, most of this work is already done for us in the link I posted.
Rewriting the spec files would be more or less systematically. It'd be still helpful if we have some macros, though. thanks, Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 11/24/2011 12:31 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 24 Nov 2011 12:05:31 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
At Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:48:50 +0100, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora. [...] If there are no major objections, I'll start working on Base:system in December. This would be really massive and invasive change. Could you try this out in a branch first before bothering packagers, please? The modifications needed are most likely not just simple spec file changes even if it may seem so in the first place. Esp the update case seems underestimated to me. Also keep in mind that Factory must still be able to bootstrap itself during the transition. Has anyone considered modifying rpm to transparently take care of the relocation? It's my concern when I read the post, too. The idea itself sounds nice, but I foresee many problems with this action.
Actually two things I thought of immediately:
- Updates Can rpm replace a directory into a symlink when the directory isn't empty? That is, when something is left in /lib/* (a left-over of temporary file or some wild non-distro packages), /lib can't be linked to /usr/lib yet. So, it'll be a mixed state without /usr/lib symlink fallback. The filesystem package will handle this, I'm working with the Red Hat
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:32:08AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: people as they just solved this very problem, so yes, this will be taken care of. So, filesystem package will do it by some post script or such? I can imagine that it contains /lib, /bin, etc as %ghost, and copy all existing ones (cleverly with taking hard-links into accounts) to /usr/ in %post. Any other methods may break something, I guess.
Maybe more problem would be /bin -> /usr/bin, because the path might be set in shebang. When you update bash, it's placed to /usr/bin, but /bin -> /usr/bin symlink still doesn't exist. What happens if you run a shell script of the old (still not updated) package? I think the symlink pointing from /bin to /usr/bin should handle this, why would the link not be there anymore? One problem is that this filesystem.rpm update becomes to a high dependency. When bash.rpm is updated with the new location, and if user updates bash.rpm before filesystem.rpm, this will break badly.
And, can Tumbleweed handle this mess smoothly? It better, I'll be testing to ensure this works properly :)
- The spec file rewrites Many spec files contain the hard-coded /lib, /bin or /sbin. Can we use this as is? Or if the change is needed, can we provide a macro for sharing the spec for different versions? The spec files look like they need to be rewritten. First glance, it "only" looks to be about 250 or so, again, most of this work is already done for us in the link I posted. Rewriting the spec files would be more or less systematically. It'd be still helpful if we have some macros, though.
thanks,
Takashi Just out of curiosity, if /usr goes away, what happens to /usr/local... And my favorite, /usr/local/src
Just askin' Bruce -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 24.11.2011 21:43, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if /usr goes away, what happens to /usr/local... And my favorite, /usr/local/src
/usr/ will not go away. Everything will go into /usr. => you'll be fine. -- Stefan Seyfried "Dispatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body!" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On donderdag 24 november 2011 22:32:10 Stefan Seyfried wrote:
On 24.11.2011 21:43, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if /usr goes away, what happens to /usr/local... And my favorite, /usr/local/src
/usr/ will not go away. Everything will go into /usr.
You mean everything which does change during normal use, and can be shared between between different systems, so can be mounted read-only. Only with an update or upgrade things change here. -- fr.gr. Freek de Kruijf -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 09:48:50AM +0100, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora. [...] If there are no major objections, I'll start working on Base:system in December.
This would be really massive and invasive change. Could you try this out in a branch first before bothering packagers, please?
I'll branch Base:system to test this out, of course.
The modifications needed are most likely not just simple spec file changes even if it may seem so in the first place. Esp the update case seems underestimated to me. Also keep in mind that Factory must still be able to bootstrap itself during the transition.
I understand.
Has anyone considered modifying rpm to transparently take care of the relocation?
I don't think that would be a good idea, it would only confuse people, right? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 09:48:50AM +0100, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Has anyone considered modifying rpm to transparently take care of the relocation?
I don't think that would be a good idea, it would only confuse people, right?
A major undertaking like that will cause confusion one way or another. Anyways, I'm curious to see your solution how to handle the transition during zypper dup and what kind of creative %post actions need to be added to packages (old wisdom directories+symlinks+rpm=evil). cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 23 of November 2011 19:51EN, Greg KH wrote:
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora.
It's a bit surprising but after thinking about it, I must say I like the idea. At least I won't have to check whether the interpreter is in /bin or /usr/bin when writing scripts... Just one concern: do we have a mechanism to guarantee that all packages containing files (especially programs and libraries) duplicated in the initial ramdisk regenerate it when updated? Of course, the problem exists already but with the transition, it would become even more important. Michal Kubeček -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thursday 24 November 2011, Michal Kubeček wrote:
On Wednesday 23 of November 2011 19:51EN, Greg KH wrote:
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora.
It's a bit surprising but after thinking about it, I must say I like the idea. At least I won't have to check whether the interpreter is in /bin or /usr/bin when writing scripts...
Except that you should still use for example /bin/bash regardless whether it's only a link to /usr/bin/ if you want to be compatible with most other systems. So in practice you have even more to think about it because simply looking at "which bla" doesn't tell you anymore what is the most portable location. cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Wouldn't env provide a short way out in those cases and provide maybe
better compatibility ? At least with python it seems to be popular.
NM
2011/11/24 Ruediger Meier
On Thursday 24 November 2011, Michal Kubeček wrote:
On Wednesday 23 of November 2011 19:51EN, Greg KH wrote:
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora.
It's a bit surprising but after thinking about it, I must say I like the idea. At least I won't have to check whether the interpreter is in /bin or /usr/bin when writing scripts...
Except that you should still use for example /bin/bash regardless whether it's only a link to /usr/bin/ if you want to be compatible with most other systems. So in practice you have even more to think about it because simply looking at "which bla" doesn't tell you anymore what is the most portable location.
cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-- Nelson Marques /* http://www.marques.so nmo.marques@gmail.com */ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Ruediger Meier wrote:
On Thursday 24 November 2011, Michal Kubeček wrote:
On Wednesday 23 of November 2011 19:51EN, Greg KH wrote:
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora.
It's a bit surprising but after thinking about it, I must say I like the idea. At least I won't have to check whether the interpreter is in /bin or /usr/bin when writing scripts...
Except that you should still use for example /bin/bash regardless whether it's only a link to /usr/bin/ if you want to be compatible with most other systems.
For portable scripts it's better to use #!/usr/bin/env bash. Then it runs on FreeBSD, too. (There bash is in /usr/bin.) The same goes for Perl, et.al. This reminds me of an old quote of Larry Wall: ------------- Drew Mills writes: : A contest to see who could write the most useful script that : could actually be used in the most languages *as is* [...] I've written some scripts that work in 582 different languages, all of them named sh. ------------ You need to be old enough to have seen old Perl's Configure script that cared for Eunice to understand that quote, though... ;-) Joachim -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Joachim Schrod Email: jschrod@acm.org Roedermark, Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thursday 24 November 2011, Greg KH wrote:
Hi all,
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora.
Here's the details as to why this is a good thing to do, and what is involved in it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
The first packages implementing this have already started to land in Fedora's version of Factory.
Before you get worried, there will be symlinks back to /bin and /sbin for those scripts expecting things to be in those locations.
zypper dup would be a real challenge. How you want to merge /bin -> /usr/bin?: mv /bin/* /usr/bin/ rmdir /bin ln -s /usr/bin /bin ? Beside the fact that's high-handed action to do something like this on unknown user's environment it would be much more complicated to make that step atomic to not crash the running system. No matter how good you do it. It's hard to solve the following (minor or major) problems. 1. breaking consistency of installed (non suse) rpms 2. deleting equally named files which the user might have in different *bin. (Don't forget that there are users having make installed things.) 3. breaking over stuff you can't know about. For example what if user has a .git/ whithin every *bin (whyever he should do so is not the question here) 4. messing up output of which --all (and all it could impact) if user has set it's custom $PATH containing all current *bin
We can use the Fedora patches for almost all of this, they are all published at: http://harald.fedorapeople.org/downloads/usrmove/ and a number of upstream projects are already moving their releases over to this as well, which will make things easier.
If there are no major objections, I'll start working on Base:system in December.
Bootup with empty /usr is still possible and used with openSUSE as somebody pointed just a few days ago. BTW Peottering's statement about this is just ridiculous: "I have /usr as a separate partition. What changes for me? - Not sure, how you managed to do that. In general, having /usr as a separate partition does not really work right now." Personally I don't really care about it except that I don't like */sbin */bin merge because it messes up non-admin's TAB completion. (I have it in $PATH anyway). cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 24/11/11 07:43, Ruediger Meier wrote:
1. breaking consistency of installed (non suse) rpms
So be it, if we start adding conditions like supporting/caring for foreign rpms it becomes a never ending list of scenarios.
BTW Peottering's statement about this is just ridiculous: "I have /usr as a separate partition. What changes for me? - Not sure, how you managed to do that. In general, having /usr as a separate partition does not really work right now."
He is correct, it might boot, or appear to work, but it doesn't really. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 11/24/2011 04:36 PM, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 24/11/11 07:43, Ruediger Meier wrote:
1. breaking consistency of installed (non suse) rpms
So be it, if we start adding conditions like supporting/caring for foreign rpms it becomes a never ending list of scenarios.
BTW Peottering's statement about this is just ridiculous: "I have /usr as a separate partition. What changes for me? - Not sure, how you managed to do that. In general, having /usr as a separate partition does not really work right now."
He is correct, it might boot, or appear to work, but it doesn't really.
We fixed openSUSE 12.1 so that /usr as separate partition works via mounting from the initial ram disk. So, there shouldn't be a problem with openSUSE 12.1. There was a problem for some time but that's history ;) Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, 2011-11-24 at 16:44 +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
We fixed openSUSE 12.1 so that /usr as separate partition works via mounting from the initial ram disk. So, there shouldn't be a problem with openSUSE 12.1. There was a problem for some time but that's history ;)
I see no mention of this in the release notes. I have a separate /usr partition since always. How will that affect me if I try to upgrade to 12.1? - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. (from 11.4 x86_64 "Celadon" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk7O8qQACgkQtTMYHG2NR9XvtgCbBvOEuwSWAgt+NxfcUq6aKkKs OycAn0Q3FZ6JKOGoFbBlaOmVtI3WyxTq =ojzd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 24/11/11 22:43, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I have a separate /usr partition since always. How will that affect me if I try to upgrade to 12.1?
Nothing will happen, other than making your system actually work and not pretending it works. :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thursday 24 November 2011, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 24/11/11 07:43, Ruediger Meier wrote:
1. breaking consistency of installed (non suse) rpms
So be it, if we start adding conditions like supporting/caring for foreign rpms it becomes a never ending list of scenarios.
You not only don't support what user is doing on his machines but even don't care about it? Nice attitude. Having OBS and letting users add custom repos or even build own stuff is one of the major features of openSUSE. It's pronounced at many official openSUSE pages. Perhaps you should at least _try_ to take a bit care to not break official use cases. Filling up existing directories with files is a very very usual thing done by many users. Somehow you should care about these files while you are rampaging through /. That's all I wanted to say and does not mean that I'am fully against the merge. cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 24/11/11 14:14, Ruediger Meier wrote:
On Thursday 24 November 2011, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 24/11/11 07:43, Ruediger Meier wrote:
1. breaking consistency of installed (non suse) rpms
So be it, if we start adding conditions like supporting/caring for foreign rpms it becomes a never ending list of scenarios.
You not only don't support what user is doing on his machines but even don't care about it? Nice attitude.
In am not talking about rpms built on the OBS that will fail to compile if they violate the rules or make something ugly. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thursday 24 November 2011 18:32:04 Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 24/11/11 14:14, Ruediger Meier wrote:
On Thursday 24 November 2011, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 24/11/11 07:43, Ruediger Meier wrote:
1. breaking consistency of installed (non suse) rpms
So be it, if we start adding conditions like supporting/caring for foreign rpms it becomes a never ending list of scenarios.
You not only don't support what user is doing on his machines but even don't care about it? Nice attitude.
In am not talking about rpms built on the OBS that will fail to compile if they violate the rules or make something ugly.
What benefit are we the users going to gain from yet more fiddeling/tweaking of the system i mean we already have had pulse audio thrown at us it is still no good and cant talk to mixers correctly now we have systemd as the supposed replacement for sysvinit systemd is to say the least dodgy As i asked what benefit is it to us the users..?. Pete Linux user since kernel 0.99.0a -- Powered by openSUSE 11.3 (x86_64) Kernel: 2.6.34.10-0.4-desktop KDE Development Platform: 4.6.5 (4.6.5) "release 7" 19:01 up 9 days 21:19, 4 users, load average: 0.20, 0.23, 0.18 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 24/11/11 16:04, Peter Nikolic wrote:
What benefit are we the users going to gain from yet more fiddeling/tweaking of the system
It is described in TFA: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
i mean we already have had pulse audio thrown at us it is still no good and cant talk to mixers correctly now we have systemd as the supposed replacement for sysvinit systemd is to say the least dodgy
Bug numbers if any ? or is about complaining for no technical reason whatsoever ? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thursday 24 November 2011 16:15:14 Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 24/11/11 16:04, Peter Nikolic wrote:
What benefit are we the users going to gain from yet more fiddeling/tweaking of the system
It is described in TFA: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
You have no idea how much you are depressing me right now. Anders -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thursday 24 Nov 2011 19:04:31 Peter Nikolic wrote:
As i asked what benefit is it to us the users..?.
Ultimately, an easier to maintain, more flexible and potentially more secure system and filetree for developers, maintainers, users and sysadmins. Everyone wins here. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 24/11/11 18:28, Graham Anderson wrote:
On Thursday 24 Nov 2011 19:04:31 Peter Nikolic wrote:
As i asked what benefit is it to us the users..?.
Ultimately, an easier to maintain, more flexible and potentially more secure system and filetree for developers, maintainers, users and sysadmins. Everyone wins here.
Add to that, possible standarized between distributions. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thursday 24 November 2011, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 24/11/11 07:43, Ruediger Meier wrote:
1. breaking consistency of installed (non suse) rpms
So be it, if we start adding conditions like supporting/caring for foreign rpms it becomes a never ending list of scenarios.
You not only don't support what user is doing on his machines but even don't care about it? Nice attitude. If backwards compatibility was our primary concern we would wind up like Windows, whom it is a high priority for.
Having OBS and letting users add custom repos or even build own stuff is one of the major features of openSUSE. It's pronounced at many official openSUSE pages. OBS is an automation system, and as such can be adjusted to help the user in
On Thursday, November 24, 2011 06:14:44 PM Ruediger Meier wrote: this scenario. Foreign RPM refers to say one for redhat or one of the Google RPMs.
Perhaps you should at least _try_ to take a bit care to not break official use cases.
This care is taken as far as I understand from reading by symlinking the old locations to the new.
Filling up existing directories with files is a very very usual thing done by many users. Somehow you should care about these files while you are rampaging through /. That's all I wanted to say and does not mean that I'am fully against the merge.
cu, Rudi
-- Roger Luedecke openSUSE Ambassador Ind. Repairs and Consulting **Looking for a C++ etc. mentor*** -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thursday 24 November 2011, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 24/11/11 07:43, Ruediger Meier wrote:
1. breaking consistency of installed (non suse) rpms So be it, if we start adding conditions like supporting/caring for foreign rpms it becomes a never ending list of scenarios. You not only don't support what user is doing on his machines but even don't care about it? Nice attitude. If backwards compatibility was our primary concern we would wind up like Windows, whom it is a high priority for. Having OBS and letting users add custom repos or even build own stuff is one of the major features of openSUSE. It's pronounced at many official openSUSE pages. OBS is an automation system, and as such can be adjusted to help the user in
On Thursday, November 24, 2011 06:14:44 PM Ruediger Meier wrote: this scenario. Foreign RPM refers to say one for redhat or one of the Google RPMs.
Perhaps you should at least _try_ to take a bit care to not break official use cases. This care is taken as far as I understand from reading by symlinking the old locations to the new. Filling up existing directories with files is a very very usual thing done by many users. Somehow you should care about these files while you are rampaging through /. That's all I wanted to say and does not mean that I'am fully against the merge.
cu, Rudi Ya know, I've been doing a bit a research... History and such and it's caused me to look quite a bit at what it is I like about Opensuse. One major thing I like is tight adherence to standards... Little things like FHS and LSB. These have been thoroughly hashed out over time and, in my opinion, have resulted in a solid, dependable system. While this
On 11/24/2011 02:25 PM, Roger Luedecke wrote: proposed change may *seem* like a good thing on the surface, it doesn't feel like it's been wrung out enough. Just my opinion. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 24/11/11 20:38, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
Ya know, I've been doing a bit a research... History and such and it's caused me to look quite a bit at what it is I like about Opensuse. One major thing I like is tight adherence to standards... Little things like FHS and LSB.
This change does not contradict the FHS or the LSB (both of which are dead btw) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 09:30:35PM -0300, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 24/11/11 20:38, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
Ya know, I've been doing a bit a research... History and such and it's caused me to look quite a bit at what it is I like about Opensuse. One major thing I like is tight adherence to standards... Little things like FHS and LSB.
This change does not contradict the FHS or the LSB (both of which are dead btw)
They aren't "dead", they are just specs that are written after the changes happen in the distros, not before, so they always seem to lag a few years, which is their specific goal. A new LSB version is being worked on right now in fact. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 08:21 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 09:30:35PM -0300, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 24/11/11 20:38, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
Ya know, I've been doing a bit a research... History and such and it's caused me to look quite a bit at what it is I like about Opensuse. One major thing I like is tight adherence to standards... Little things like FHS and LSB.
This change does not contradict the FHS or the LSB (both of which are dead btw)
They aren't "dead", they are just specs that are written after the changes happen in the distros, not before, so they always seem to lag a few years, which is their specific goal.
A new LSB version is being worked on right now in fact.
greg k-h Looking forward for a lecture (on it) by you on the next FOSDEM... Previous talk (a couple of years ago on kernel-stuff) was very much inspiring
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 25 November 2011 00:30:35 Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 24/11/11 20:38, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
Ya know, I've been doing a bit a research... History and such and it's caused me to look quite a bit at what it is I like about Opensuse. One major thing I like is tight adherence to standards... Little things like FHS and LSB.
This change does not contradict the FHS or the LSB (both of which are dead btw)
Yea you would love that would you not dream on .. Pete Linux since kernel 0.99.0a -- Powered by openSUSE 11.3 (x86_64) Kernel: 2.6.34.10-0.4-desktop KDE Development Platform: 4.6.5 (4.6.5) "release 7" 18:17 up 10 days 20:35, 4 users, load average: 0.11, 0.17, 0.10 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 25/11/11 15:18, Peter Nikolic wrote:
Yea you would love that would you not dream on ..
It doesnt matter what I wish or dream, this article by drepper is going to show you the reality and in the end why it is doomed to fail http://udrepper.livejournal.com/8511.html -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 06:06:16PM -0300, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 25/11/11 15:18, Peter Nikolic wrote:
Yea you would love that would you not dream on ..
It doesnt matter what I wish or dream, this article by drepper is going to show you the reality and in the end why it is doomed to fail http://udrepper.livejournal.com/8511.html
That was 6 years ago, the LSB has changed a lot since then. Not as much as some of us would like, but I wouldn't count it out just yet :) greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 25 November 2011, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 06:06:16PM -0300, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 25/11/11 15:18, Peter Nikolic wrote:
Yea you would love that would you not dream on ..
It doesnt matter what I wish or dream, this article by drepper is going to show you the reality and in the end why it is doomed to fail http://udrepper.livejournal.com/8511.html
That was 6 years ago, the LSB has changed a lot since then. Not as much as some of us would like, but I wouldn't count it out just yet :)
BTW Drepper only criticiced the value of LSB's ABI part which would be needed for portable binary shipped sofware. He has not claimed that LSB is dead. Others think that even the ABI is useful now and it's actually used by large companies shipping closed source stuff. cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 11/25/2011 03:11 PM, Rüdiger Meier wrote:
On Friday 25 November 2011, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 06:06:16PM -0300, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 25/11/11 15:18, Peter Nikolic wrote:
Yea you would love that would you not dream on ..
It doesnt matter what I wish or dream, this article by drepper is going to show you the reality and in the end why it is doomed to fail http://udrepper.livejournal.com/8511.html
That was 6 years ago, the LSB has changed a lot since then. Not as much as some of us would like, but I wouldn't count it out just yet :)
BTW Drepper only criticiced the value of LSB's ABI part which would be needed for portable binary shipped sofware. He has not claimed that LSB is dead. Others think that even the ABI is useful now and it's actually used by large companies shipping closed source stuff.
cu, Rudi
Moreover, there are people within openSUSE reviving LSB for the next version. While it is imperfect, it could be a useful standard. Hopefully the next round corrects the sins of the past. Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, 2011-11-24 at 11:43 +0100, Ruediger Meier wrote:
Bootup with empty /usr is still possible and used with openSUSE as somebody pointed just a few days ago.
BTW Peottering's statement about this is just ridiculous: "I have /usr as a separate partition. What changes for me? - Not sure, how you managed to do that. In general, having /usr as a separate partition does not really work right now."
I do have a separate /usr partition, as was recomended by the SuSE reference book when it was printed in paper. How will this affect me? - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. (from 11.4 x86_64 "Celadon" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk7O8XYACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VWqgCaAoT9AvbCinnLdscbnHrVaL5R hSAAn2kWeQt/0ijouQLSDGeha5hfEEqo =diSp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 24/11/11 22:37, Carlos E. R. wrote:
How will this affect me?
As AJ previously said, since 12.1 /usr is mounted very early by the initial ram disk, this change will only get rid of the artificial separation of tools between /bin /sbin ... and /usr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Cristian RodrC-guez wrote:
On 24/11/11 22:37, Carlos E. R. wrote:
How will this affect me?
As AJ previously said, since 12.1 /usr is mounted very early by the initial ram disk, this change will only get rid of the artificial separation of tools between /bin /sbin ... and /usr
The whole purpose of having /bin and /sbin, was to have a set of tools that 1) were statically linked, 2) could run in a low-resource/low OS-functionality state 3) Allow for some minimal set of files to be load in order to bring up a shell so any problems in booting could be resolved. (don't think all of the above are true anymore...but...) ^^^^ (I've used that when my /usr partition went belly up. Was able to restore it and continue...)... without out it... Would have had to find a DVD to boot from -- hope it was readable (they decay as do the drives)... Eh...not very often this stuff happens... But... I have a small /root and separate /boot partition so they check and load quickly and don't require frequent writes. So their state is fairly steady. I.e. if I pull the plug, they are the MOST likely partitions to come up w/o any problems. /usr is pretty high up in terms of reliability, it's just alot bigger. I've even split sections like off and put them on other disks. like /usr/share, of '/usr', '/usr/share' is 55% of the space. ... Is /usr/share being separate from /usr going to be another problem (besides /usr being separate from /)? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 19/12/11 23:02, Linda Walsh wrote:
The whole purpose of having /bin and /sbin, was to have a set of tools that 1) were statically linked,
Those barely exists today, for a very simple reason, we have axed most static libraries, except a handful there were really needed. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Linda Walsh wrote:
Cristian RodrC-guez wrote:
On 24/11/11 22:37, Carlos E. R. wrote:
How will this affect me?
As AJ previously said, since 12.1 /usr is mounted very early by the initial ram disk, this change will only get rid of the artificial separation of tools between /bin /sbin ... and /usr
The whole purpose of having /bin and /sbin, was to have a set of tools that 1) were statically linked, 2) could run in a low-resource/low OS-functionality state 3) Allow for some minimal set of files to be load in order to bring up a shell so any problems in booting could be resolved. (don't think all of the above are true anymore...but...)
^^^^ (I've used that when my /usr partition went belly up.
From current experience of my staff: that is not sufficient. If we want boot-problem-resolving tools to be available, we have to put them in initrd. That's the only way to be sure they will be available if GRUB/lilo succeeds booting.
Joachim -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Joachim Schrod Email: jschrod@acm.org Roedermark, Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 21 December 2011 02:06:21 Joachim Schrod wrote:
From current experience of my staff: that is not sufficient. If we want boot-problem-resolving tools to be available, we have to put them in initrd. That's the only way to be sure they will be available if GRUB/lilo succeeds booting.
Which tools do you mean? Given that /bin and /sbin will be unavailable only when the root partition fails to mount, what tools do you put into the initrd to resolve that? Aside from fsck perhaps, but that is already in there ANders -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/20/2011 8:56 PM, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Wednesday 21 December 2011 02:06:21 Joachim Schrod wrote:
From current experience of my staff: that is not sufficient. If we want boot-problem-resolving tools to be available, we have to put them in initrd. That's the only way to be sure they will be available if GRUB/lilo succeeds booting.
Which tools do you mean? Given that /bin and /sbin will be unavailable only when the root partition fails to mount, what tools do you put into the initrd to resolve that? Aside from fsck perhaps, but that is already in there
ANders
Tons of things, but put it this way, the current initrd is not enough, but the net install iso initrd, after it has downloaded and unpacked it's other images, is good enough, but even there it's largely because it includes enough connectivity tools to let you get things from elsewhere that weren't included already when you discover you need them. Almost any time there is a problem booting and I'm dropped to the initrd emergency shell, Unless it's a plain case of needing to manually run mdadm because for whatever reason it failed to run automatically, I have to boot an install image and use it as the emergency repair platform. dd, parted, mkfs for all fs's, fsck for all fs's, vi, proprietary raid card utils, it hasn't happened lately and I'm too busy pretending not to panic at the time to take notes so I could later answer this question. The answer is "all manner of things". -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 20 December 2011 21:25:44 Brian K. White wrote:
dd, parted, mkfs for all fs's, fsck for all fs's, vi, proprietary raid card utils, it hasn't happened lately and I'm too busy pretending not to panic at the time to take notes so I could later answer this question. The answer is "all manner of things".
Well, fsck for the file system you have on the root partition is in there, you don't need all the others. mkfs is a little baffling, how would mkfs enable you to mount the root partition? Same question for vi and dd. Are you talking about using the initrd as a platform for restoring backups? For general repair duties, I'm not sure the initrd is the right place for it. It is supposed to be a minimal tool to enable you to mount the root file system and nothing more. You always have the option of taking the rescue image from the DVD and setting that up as an alternative boot. Except for the proprietary raid utilities you mentioned, it should have everything you need to repair a system. I wouldn't consider that something you want to load on every single boot, because some day it may fail. Anders -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2011-12-21 03:36, Anders Johansson wrote:
You always have the option of taking the rescue image from the DVD and setting that up as an alternative boot. Except for the proprietary raid utilities you mentioned, it should have everything you need to repair a system. I wouldn't consider that something you want to load on every single boot, because some day it may fail.
Typically I always have an extra partition with a small Linux system I can use for emergencies. I also use it for a test of the next version. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.4 x86_64 "Celadon" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAk8EqtUACgkQja8UbcUWM1wbCAD5Af40fjac8PwxbSqj1oBbALF9 e4ULcswxoQUpKlJ9UpgA/0mO8eH/FLX3HzU0eqCmnWgngQSJ+HqTjJxHUh+MtFol =5i77 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Wednesday 21 December 2011 02:06:21 Joachim Schrod wrote:
From current experience of my staff: that is not sufficient. If we want boot-problem-resolving tools to be available, we have to put them in initrd. That's the only way to be sure they will be available if GRUB/lilo succeeds booting.
Which tools do you mean? Given that /bin and /sbin will be unavailable only when the root partition fails to mount, what tools do you put into the initrd to resolve that? Aside from fsck perhaps, but that is already in there
My colleague botched his md set up. (He wanted to split his raid; marked one side as failed and removed it, but forgot to --zero-superblock it.) We weren't able to mount one half of mirrored root directly, nor could we establish the mirror again. I have to admit I didn't try long, but told him to take an installation DVD and boot a rescue system where all necessary tools were available. Joachim -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Joachim Schrod Email: jschrod@acm.org Roedermark, Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Greg KH
Hi all,
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora.
Here's the details as to why this is a good thing to do, and what is involved in it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
I made a careful read of the link you posted. I feel as though the reasoning behind the move could use a bit clearer and concise explanation. However, I see this change as reasonable and, long-term, beneficial. Is there some way that I can help? -- Jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Le mercredi 23 novembre 2011 à 19:51 -0800, Greg KH a écrit :
Hi all,
As a proposal for 12.2, I would like to implement the move of all binaries to /usr/ like is being done at the moment in Fedora.
Is there a FATE opened for this for 12.1 ? :)
--
Frederic Crozat
On 24/11/11 00:51, Greg KH wrote:
If there are no major objections, I'll start working on Base:system in December.
Ok Greg, you can start in something that is probably familiar to you, mkinitrd.. mkinitrd_setup which is in /sbin needs /usr/bin/perl ... so does update-bootloader, module_upgrade..etc.. and pretty much everything there does too :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 02:25:52AM -0300, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 24/11/11 00:51, Greg KH wrote:
If there are no major objections, I'll start working on Base:system in December.
Ok Greg, you can start in something that is probably familiar to you, mkinitrd..
I am not familiar at all with mkinitrd, sorry.
mkinitrd_setup which is in /sbin needs /usr/bin/perl ... so does update-bootloader, module_upgrade..etc..
and pretty much everything there does too :-)
I'll start with other, easier ones :) greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
participants (27)
-
Anders Johansson -
Andreas Jaeger -
Brian K. White -
Bruce Ferrell -
Carlos E. R. -
Cristian Rodríguez -
Frederic Crozat -
Freek de Kruijf -
Graham Anderson -
Greg KH -
Hans Witvliet -
jdd -
Joachim Schrod -
Jon Nelson -
Linda Walsh -
Ludwig Nussel -
Michal Kubeček -
Nelson Marques -
Peter Linnell -
Peter Nikolic -
Petr Uzel -
Roger Luedecke -
Ruediger Meier -
Rüdiger Meier
-
Stefan Seyfried -
Takashi Iwai -
Tim Edwards