Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting: Tuesday 8th May 2012, 19:00 UTC

[William Hubbs]

Hi Mike,

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 09:41:34PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:46:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 04 May 2012 19:06:37 William Hubbs wrote:
> > > If you use an initramfs to pre-mount /usr, all of these issues are moot
> > > and things just work (tm). Mike's sep-usr use flag option on busybox
> > > may do this, but see below.
> > >
> > > - Separate /usr without initramfs blocks the /usr merge.
> > >   In my original request to have your vote reviewed, I pointed out the
> > >   document which asserts that the /usr merge is a good thing and pointed
> > >   out the thread in which we discussed it on -dev. The arguments
> > >   supporting it are strong, and I haven't seen any technical argument
> > >   against it that would not be addressed by using an initramfs with
> > >   separate /usr. If you are using an initramfs, you will never know
> > >   when the /usr merge happens, but if you are using something like
> > >   Mike's option your system is not compatible with the merge.
> >
> > why exactly do you say that ?  i already explained that busybox[sep-usr] works
> > perfectly fine in a /usr-merged world.  the /ginit static ELF literally needs
> > nothing else in the system to work.  you could boot a rootfs where the only
> > thing in / was ginit and it wouldn't be a problem.
>
> Ah ok, maybe this is the answer then. That's why I said above that I
> wasn't sure.
>
> If you are installing the ginit binary directly in /, we may be good
> to go. :-)

This is pretty slick. I'm running with an initramfs, but I may test your
code here in  a few.

Also, I think I found something I'm going to send you a patch for. I'll
handle that in private email though.

William