| 1 |
On 2012.12.27 22:13, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 03:14:37PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Something I don't like about this whole debate is that it tends to |
| 4 |
> > come off as "I've never run an initramfs and darn it I want to keep |
| 5 |
> it |
| 6 |
> > that way." Gentoo has always been a cutting-edge/innovative |
| 7 |
> distro. |
| 8 |
> > We have prefix, hardened, x32, and we were among the first to |
| 9 |
> support |
| 10 |
> > amd64. Sure, that flexibility also lets you get away without an |
| 11 |
> > initramfs where other distros simply cannot. However, the lack of |
| 12 |
> an |
| 13 |
> > initramfs should not be a crutch. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Rich, |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> you just hit my concern about this debate right on the head. I feel |
| 18 |
> like |
| 19 |
> the nay-sayers are opposed to it because of the FHS, and the idea of |
| 20 |
> critical software going in / and everything else in /usr. The |
| 21 |
> attitude |
| 22 |
> seems to be that has always worked, so it must continue to work into |
| 23 |
> the |
| 24 |
> future, with no regard to the advantages that moving everything to |
| 25 |
> /usr |
| 26 |
> would give us. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Another concern I've heard says that we shouldn't do this on linux |
| 29 |
> because gentoo *bsd doesn't do it. I don't see that as relevant |
| 30 |
> because ebuilds can be smart enough to test whether they are being |
| 31 |
> emerged on Linux or *BSD. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> William |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I don't think the 'luddites' have quite so black and white a view as |
| 38 |
that but if I expand on it much more, I'll reignite a flamewar we have |
| 39 |
already had. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Regards, |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Roy Bamford |
| 45 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 46 |
elections |
| 47 |
gentoo-ops |
| 48 |
forum-mods |
| 49 |
trustees |
Archives