| 1 |
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:50:51AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > This all started with the April 2012 council meeting when it was |
| 5 |
> > pushed through that separate /usr without an initramfs is a |
| 6 |
> > supported configuration, so yes, the previous council started this |
| 7 |
> > issue. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Sorry, but that's not an accurate account of what the council has |
| 10 |
> decided on. What we voted on in the April 2012 meeting was this: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> <ulm> The question is: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still |
| 13 |
> a supported configuration." |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Ulrich, |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I have read the log, and that is where the confusion is. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If that is true, and I think folks would beg to differ, we can say that |
| 20 |
the way separate /usr is supported is via requiring an initramfs and |
| 21 |
move forward from there because that would still be within the |
| 22 |
council's requirement since there is now documentation on how to build |
| 23 |
an initramfs. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I know at least one council member who was at that meeting who would |
| 26 |
strongly disagree and say that what you voted for was that separate |
| 27 |
/usr, without an initramfs, is a supported configuration. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Thoughts? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
William |
Archives