| 1 |
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 12:35:58PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:36:56PM +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Friday, April 1, 2016 8:33:02 PM CEST, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On 01 Apr 2016 20:00, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > >> On Friday, April 1, 2016 3:58:18 AM CEST, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 6 |
> > >>>> ... |
| 7 |
> > >>> "being supported" != "enabled by default". so no, i still don't see any |
| 8 |
> > >>> requirement in anything you've cited that this be turned on |
| 9 |
> > >>> by default. ... |
| 10 |
> > >> |
| 11 |
> > >> you're right, but you know, before you claimed the contrary of what was |
| 12 |
> > >> voted and then decided to argue whether a 4 years old council decision |
| 13 |
> > >> applies or not here, my point was, and still is, that such council |
| 14 |
> > >> decisions make me think you're confusing what *you* want and |
| 15 |
> > >> what *we* (as |
| 16 |
> > >> a project) want for this case |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > i see no significant number of people clamoring for this as the default. |
| 19 |
> > > the bug that started this has everyone on board for changing the default. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > yes; I also tend to think fedora's usr move is what makes most sense |
| 22 |
> > nowadays, but that'd go against council |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> No, it wouldn't. We made a decision in 2013 (I'll have to find it) that |
| 25 |
> separate /usr should only be supported via initramfs; there is also a |
| 26 |
> news item warning that if you are not using initramfs and you have |
| 27 |
> separate /usr your system will be unbootable in the future. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Here are the latest council decision on the matter [1] and news item [2]. |
| 30 |
At this point, if anyone who has split /usr isn't using initramfs, |
| 31 |
they are operating on borrowed time. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I would agree, since it has been so long, that we should do another news |
| 34 |
item, but once the news item is done and we give a firm date, I think |
| 35 |
we should just kill off gen_usr_ldscript. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
The /usr merge is a separate issue, which I agree with as well, but that |
| 38 |
was never brought to council, and it is controversial in the Gentoo camp |
| 39 |
because some folks claim fhs doesn't allow it. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
William |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
[1] |
| 44 |
https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20130924-summary.txt |
| 45 |
[2] |
| 46 |
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/gentoo-news.git/plain/2013-09-27-initramfs-required/2013-09-27-initramfs-required.en.txt |
Archives