| 1 |
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 01:49:50PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Understood. However, the whole request to not have to support a |
| 4 |
>> separate /usr without an initramfs was brought up by the udev team. |
| 5 |
>> If udev doesn't have the need, then they should just go do what they |
| 6 |
>> want to do and stop asking the council to step in, as there apparently |
| 7 |
>> isn't anything for them to decide on. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I wasn't actually asking the council to step in. I was just trying to |
| 10 |
> have a discussion here. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The Council WAS asked to step in: |
| 13 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20120403-summary.txt |
| 14 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/1864/focus=1867 |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
However, you are right, the udev team did not actually request this. |
| 17 |
So, if udev 180+ doesn't break anything that wasn't already broken in |
| 18 |
udev 179- then just go about your business... :) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
>> 1. It isn't my decision to make. This is the role of the Council. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Tell me if I am wrong here. My understanding is that this is only true |
| 23 |
> if the community itself doesn't make the decision first. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
True, but I don't see any consensus on this topic. The /usr move is |
| 26 |
VERY controversial, at least within Gentoo. This really doesn't fall |
| 27 |
into the domain of any one project either - this affects the whole |
| 28 |
distro. Even if it did fall into the domain of a single project, |
| 29 |
anybody with half a brain would realize that you don't just do |
| 30 |
something like this on the initiative of a few individuals unless you |
| 31 |
want a really big mess on your hands. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> If I were to start that thread now, I would change my introduction to |
| 34 |
> not specifically mention udev, systemd and kmod, but my view still is |
| 35 |
> that it will be better for us in the longrun if we do it. Maybe that is |
| 36 |
> a topic for another thread though. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Agreed. There is no harm in discussing it. I'd love to see this as a |
| 39 |
supported Gentoo configuration, and perhaps even as the default. |
| 40 |
However, this should come down to a discussion of pros/cons, |
| 41 |
especially in terms of what kinds of opportunities it creates. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Something I don't like about this whole debate is that it tends to |
| 44 |
come off as "I've never run an initramfs and darn it I want to keep it |
| 45 |
that way." Gentoo has always been a cutting-edge/innovative distro. |
| 46 |
We have prefix, hardened, x32, and we were among the first to support |
| 47 |
amd64. Sure, that flexibility also lets you get away without an |
| 48 |
initramfs where other distros simply cannot. However, the lack of an |
| 49 |
initramfs should not be a crutch. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
I could see the exact same argument unfolding 15 years ago about |
| 52 |
forcing users to have a bootloader like grub. Go bring up the |
| 53 |
suggestion that the kernel should support direct booting on lkml and |
| 54 |
I'm sure Linus will tell you to bugger_off... |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Rich |
Archives