1 |
On 05/04/2012 08:20 AM, Steven J Long wrote: |
2 |
> Zac Medico wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> On 04/22/2012 10:55 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
5 |
>>> On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote: |
6 |
>>>> From the first reply: |
7 |
>>>> |
8 |
>>>> "To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr |
9 |
>>>> _without_ mounting it early via an initramfs." |
10 |
>>>> |
11 |
>>>> I hope that settles that particular issue. |
12 |
>>>> |
13 |
>>> |
14 |
>>> Hmm... I see that in Zac's reply, thanks for that. |
15 |
>>> |
16 |
>>> Unfortunately, from what I can tell, that clarification was not actually |
17 |
>>> part of the proposed agenda [5], nor was it directly referenced. So the |
18 |
>>> subject of the vote still seems open to interpretation. |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> Yeah, it almost seems as though the council was being intentionally |
21 |
>> vague and leaving things open to interpretation. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Wow, man, never thought I'd see *you* weasel out of something like that ;) |
24 |
> |
25 |
>> In response, we had |
26 |
>> William post about the ">= udev-182 tracker" [1], to which Tony seemed |
27 |
>> to respond positively [2]. |
28 |
>> |
29 |
> That was about process to do with stabilisation. Of course having a tracker |
30 |
> to monitor any issues is a positive step. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> It doesn't say anything at all about what the base requirement was, nor what |
33 |
> was up for discussion at the meeting. You yourself clarified that it was |
34 |
> about no initramfs as soon as it was raised to Council: |
35 |
|
36 |
I *tried* to clarify it, but was apparently unsuccessful, since the |
37 |
agenda item contained no mention of initramfs: |
38 |
|
39 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2eaaf4a4e302bf0e6c20accaec61db82.xml |
40 |
|
41 |
> that was the only |
42 |
> thing that could cause a technical issue, specifically to users who have |
43 |
> setup according to official documentation, requiring a policy decision. |
44 |
|
45 |
I'm not so sure. The one question that really stood out for me was the |
46 |
question of whether or not newer udev could be stabilized, since it |
47 |
would be problematic for separate-/usr-without-initramfs systems. |
48 |
-- |
49 |
Thanks, |
50 |
Zac |