| 1 |
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 01:35:55PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:03 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 08:00:09AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon |
| 5 |
> >> <chainsaw@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> > On Wed, 2012-12-26 at 22:01 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> >> Actually, since ulm pointed out in another thread that the |
| 8 |
> >> >> council has not mandated that we support separate /usr without an |
| 9 |
> >> >> initramfs, I am re-considering this. |
| 10 |
> >> > |
| 11 |
> >> > So now that the /usr-merge steamroller can not break systems through |
| 12 |
> >> > udev, because an alternative now exists... another way must be found? |
| 13 |
> >> > That seems rather immature. |
| 14 |
> >> > What must be forked next to keep this working? openrc? |
| 15 |
> >> |
| 16 |
> >> Tend to agree, assuming it causes no additional work for package maintainers. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > As I and others have said on this list a thousdand times, moving |
| 19 |
> > everything to /usr never had anything to do with systemd and udev. This |
| 20 |
> > is a completely separate topic. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> It has everything to do with udev if you (as the udev maintainer for |
| 24 |
> Gentoo) decide to put zero effort into keeping udev working with a |
| 25 |
> traditional split-/usr configuration. Although udev is only one |
| 26 |
> package of many, it is a pretty damn critical one. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
As I said on another thread, there was a misunderstanding on my part |
| 29 |
about setting up udev. I am looking into fixing that with the next |
| 30 |
release, but I need to coordinate with systemd as well, so I thought it |
| 31 |
would be good to wait for 197 to be released, so again, this is not |
| 32 |
correct. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
William |
Archives