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