| 1 |
On 12/18/2012 01:45 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:50:51AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 3 |
>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> This all started with the April 2012 council meeting when it was |
| 6 |
>>> pushed through that separate /usr without an initramfs is a |
| 7 |
>>> supported configuration, so yes, the previous council started this |
| 8 |
>>> issue. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Sorry, but that's not an accurate account of what the council has |
| 11 |
>> decided on. What we voted on in the April 2012 meeting was this: |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> <ulm> The question is: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still |
| 14 |
>> a supported configuration." |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Ulrich, |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I have read the log, and that is where the confusion is. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> If that is true, and I think folks would beg to differ, we can say that |
| 21 |
> the way separate /usr is supported is via requiring an initramfs and |
| 22 |
> move forward from there because that would still be within the |
| 23 |
> council's requirement since there is now documentation on how to build |
| 24 |
> an initramfs. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I know at least one council member who was at that meeting who would |
| 27 |
> strongly disagree and say that what you voted for was that separate |
| 28 |
> /usr, without an initramfs, is a supported configuration. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Thoughts? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> William |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Our official documentation for LVM2 explicitly advised users to use such |
| 36 |
configurations. Dropping support now will break existing systems |
| 37 |
unnecessarily. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Before anyone says to use a news item, let me say that publishing a news |
| 40 |
item to inform users that we decided to break their systems will not |
| 41 |
make it better. |
Archives