Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-05-08

[Roy Bamford]

On 2012.04.25 01:20, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:26 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
> wrote:
> > Honestly, I agree with you. I am a udev maintainer myself, and the
> udev
> > maintainers did not bring this issue to council. More than that, no
> one,
> > that I recall, discussed any ramifications of this vote with any
> udev
> > maintainers before bringing it to council.
> >
> > The ramifications, as I said in my previous email, are not just
> udev
> > related (see the section in my previous email about the /usr
> merge).
> >
> > Once we start implementing the /usr merge, it will not matter
> whether
> > you use udev or not,  you will have to have an initramfs if your
> /usr is
> > separate.
>
> I have mixed feelings on this.
>
> The fact that the ramifications are not just udev-related tends to
> point to the fact that this shouldn't simply be up to the udev team.
> These are big changes for Gentoo, and there is a great deal of
> controversy across the Linux world resulting from them (the
> Shuttleworth vs Pottering debate being the latest iteration of this).
> Everybody has to live with this stuff, which points to council
> involvement.
>
[snip]
> Rich
>

Council involvement is only useful where there is a choice to be made
between alternatives and the proponents of the options can't agree.
In the udev case, there is as yet, no viable alternative, so the option 
is take it or leave it.

Gentoo may wish to support separate /usr without an initrd but until 
the code base allows it, there is nothing for the council to vote on. 
-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees