1 |
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon |
2 |
<chainsaw@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> On Wed, 2012-12-26 at 22:01 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
4 |
>> Actually, since ulm pointed out in another thread that the |
5 |
>> council has not mandated that we support separate /usr without an |
6 |
>> initramfs, I am re-considering this. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> So now that the /usr-merge steamroller can not break systems through |
9 |
> udev, because an alternative now exists... another way must be found? |
10 |
> That seems rather immature. |
11 |
> What must be forked next to keep this working? openrc? |
12 |
|
13 |
Tend to agree, assuming it causes no additional work for package maintainers. |
14 |
|
15 |
This all started out as udev maintainers wanting to keep things simple |
16 |
and closer to upstream. Systems with a separate /usr breaking was a |
17 |
bit of a side-effect. The general direction that was chosen was to |
18 |
provide alternatives for those who don't want to use an initramfs and |
19 |
allow udev to follow upstream. Life for the udev team is easier as a |
20 |
result. |
21 |
|
22 |
There is no decided strategic direction at Gentoo to move everything |
23 |
into /usr as there is with Fedora. It just doesn't make sense to |
24 |
start pushing packages there. That potentially CREATES work for |
25 |
maintainers (bug reports, dealing with change, etc), and there is no |
26 |
real benefit unless we systematically apply it (moving EVERYTHING into |
27 |
/usr as with Fedora). Systematically moving everything isn't going to |
28 |
happen by just changing an eclass. |
29 |
|
30 |
If somebody can see a benefit to having things moving in the direction |
31 |
of /usr then by all means stick a flag in the profiles and use it to |
32 |
control this behavior, and then we give choice to the end-user. |
33 |
However, I don't really see the point. When you change the status quo |
34 |
it should be because it either lowers cost or produces benefit. |
35 |
|
36 |
Rich |