1 |
On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:36:56PM +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
2 |
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 8:33:02 PM CEST, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
> > On 01 Apr 2016 20:00, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
4 |
> >> On Friday, April 1, 2016 3:58:18 AM CEST, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
5 |
> >>>> ... |
6 |
> >>> "being supported" != "enabled by default". so no, i still don't see any |
7 |
> >>> requirement in anything you've cited that this be turned on |
8 |
> >>> by default. ... |
9 |
> >> |
10 |
> >> you're right, but you know, before you claimed the contrary of what was |
11 |
> >> voted and then decided to argue whether a 4 years old council decision |
12 |
> >> applies or not here, my point was, and still is, that such council |
13 |
> >> decisions make me think you're confusing what *you* want and |
14 |
> >> what *we* (as |
15 |
> >> a project) want for this case |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > i see no significant number of people clamoring for this as the default. |
18 |
> > the bug that started this has everyone on board for changing the default. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> yes; I also tend to think fedora's usr move is what makes most sense |
21 |
> nowadays, but that'd go against council |
22 |
|
23 |
No, it wouldn't. We made a decision in 2013 (I'll have to find it) that |
24 |
separate /usr should only be supported via initramfs; there is also a |
25 |
news item warning that if you are not using initramfs and you have |
26 |
separate /usr your system will be unbootable in the future. |
27 |
|
28 |
> |
29 |
> > it's really no different either from the install process today: a stage3 |
30 |
> > cannot be unpacked & booted directly. a user must configure it before it |
31 |
> > can actually be used. if that means enabling USE=sep-usr, then so be it. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> except it adds yet another step |
34 |
> |
35 |
> > there's no reason to force this legacy behavior on the majority of people |
36 |
> > when a split-/usr is uncommon. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> what's the reason not to force it? saving 10kb from ldscripts out of a 1Gb |
39 |
> typical desktop install ? doesnt seem like a reason for disabling it either |
40 |
> |