1 |
Zac Medico wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 04/22/2012 10:55 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
4 |
>> On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote: |
5 |
>>> From the first reply: |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>> "To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr |
8 |
>>> _without_ mounting it early via an initramfs." |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> I hope that settles that particular issue. |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> Hmm... I see that in Zac's reply, thanks for that. |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> Unfortunately, from what I can tell, that clarification was not actually |
16 |
>> part of the proposed agenda [5], nor was it directly referenced. So the |
17 |
>> subject of the vote still seems open to interpretation. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Yeah, it almost seems as though the council was being intentionally |
20 |
> vague and leaving things open to interpretation. |
21 |
|
22 |
Wow, man, never thought I'd see *you* weasel out of something like that ;) |
23 |
|
24 |
> In response, we had |
25 |
> William post about the ">= udev-182 tracker" [1], to which Tony seemed |
26 |
> to respond positively [2]. |
27 |
> |
28 |
That was about process to do with stabilisation. Of course having a tracker |
29 |
to monitor any issues is a positive step. |
30 |
|
31 |
It doesn't say anything at all about what the base requirement was, nor what |
32 |
was up for discussion at the meeting. You yourself clarified that it was |
33 |
about no initramfs as soon as it was raised to Council: that was the only |
34 |
thing that could cause a technical issue, specifically to users who have |
35 |
setup according to official documentation, requiring a policy decision. |
36 |
|
37 |
And that's what all the discussion was about: the consequence of making that |
38 |
policy decision (ie who would maintain patches, which are no longer needed.) |
39 |
|
40 |
Still, this got silly weeks ago. Clearly Council needs to vote again with |
41 |
clear wording, or people will keep trying to pretend that they weren't |
42 |
discussing what they were asked to discuss. |
43 |
|
44 |
Regards, |
45 |
Steve. |
46 |
-- |
47 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |