1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, William Hubbs wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> This all started with the April 2012 council meeting when it was |
4 |
> pushed through that separate /usr without an initramfs is a |
5 |
> supported configuration, so yes, the previous council started this |
6 |
> issue. |
7 |
|
8 |
Sorry, but that's not an accurate account of what the council has |
9 |
decided on. What we voted on in the April 2012 meeting was this: |
10 |
|
11 |
<ulm> The question is: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still |
12 |
a supported configuration." |
13 |
|
14 |
And later in the same meeting (yes, I know it's probably not enough |
15 |
context, so read the full log [1]): |
16 |
|
17 |
<ulm> _AxS_: we should make sure that there's reasonable |
18 |
documentation about setting up an initramfs though |
19 |
<_AxS_> ulm: oh yes -- i was figuring the solution on how to |
20 |
support separate /usr with new udev would be tabled at the |
21 |
mext meeting (if necessary) |
22 |
<Chainsaw> _AxS_: I would recommend raising the implementation |
23 |
details for next meeting, yes. |
24 |
[...] |
25 |
<dberkholz> the implementation details are my concern, but that's |
26 |
not the vote. |
27 |
<ulm> o.k., that's 5 yes 1 no then |
28 |
|
29 |
Ulrich |
30 |
|
31 |
[1] <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20120403.txt> |