Re: udev still stinks

Tobias Hintze <[email protected]> Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:16:19 +0100
Newsgroups gmane.linux.distributions.rock.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 12:25:45PM +0100, Benjamin Schieder wrote:
[...]
> > 
> > oh yes it has!
> > chrooting into that installed system is like booting into the system.
> > so instead of bind-mounting one should mount tmpfs and copy from
> > /lib/udev/devices.
> > that way you get exactly what you would get when booting.
> 
> NAK.
> 
> /lib/udev/devices should NOT contain a complete /dev directory but only stuff
> that 'needs to be there' like console zero null fd -> /proc/self/fd and
> similiar nodes.

and what else do you think i do need?

> But you still might need to have /dev/discs/* to setup filesystem encryption
> for example.

i need no disk nodes for chrooting into something. only the bare
essentials like zero, null and stuff.

> That's why we need to either bind mount or do something like this:

you remember what i wrote initially?

here it goes - quoting myself:

> > quoting from udev/README:
> > =================
> >   - It is recommended to use the /lib/udev/devices directory to place
> >     device nodes and symlinks in, which are copied to /dev at every boot.
> >     That way, nodes for broken subsystems or devices which can't be
> >     detected automatically by the kernel, will always be available.
> > =================
> > 
> > that should always be the way how we create or /dev/fd -> /proc/self/fd
> > symlink.

so i was talking about the symlinks only. and i think they should be
available for copying in /lib/udev/devices.

"The problem here is the chroot after installation." [you few mails ago].

i think having the symlinks available fixes most of these problems.


> 
> killall udevd
> chroot
> cp -r /lib/udev/devices /dev
> udevd --daemon
> find /sys -name uevent | while read u ; do
> 	echo 1 > ${u}
> done
> 
> 
> Actually, I prefer the bind mount.

if i either had to choose between the two alternatives above or would be
in need of a full /dev - then i'd prefer bind-mount as well.

th
--

> 
> Greetings,
> 	Benjamin
> 
> -- 
> Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shellscript!
> 	http://shellscripts.org/



> _______________________________________________
> rock-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/rock-devel


-- 
Tobias Hintze http://hbs-solutions.de
HBS solutions GbR - Network & Information Systems