| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Here is my interpretation: the council voted on the following |
| 4 |
> question: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> <ulm> The question is: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a |
| 7 |
> supported configuration." |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> It did not decide the method that would be used to accomplish this. |
| 10 |
> A few council members (Chainsaw mainly) expressed a desire to do it |
| 11 |
> without an initramfs, but an official stance on this was not put |
| 12 |
> forward. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> You are reading into it more that you should. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Please don't cite single lines without context. My next line in that |
| 17 |
log is: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
<ulm> as in the agenda |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Which says: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
| 3. New udev and separate /usr partition (30 minutes) |
| 24 |
| |
| 25 |
| See [4]: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported |
| 26 |
| configuration. If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and |
| 27 |
| alternatives should be investigated. If it isn't, a lot of |
| 28 |
| documentation will have to be updated. (And an alternative should |
| 29 |
| likely still be provided.)" |
| 30 |
| |
| 31 |
| [4] <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_c96d1b724cd736702820fa5ff1547557.xml> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Ulrich |
Archives