Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-project@l.g.o, council@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting: Tuesday 8th May 2012, 19:00 UTC
Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 03:03:19
Message-Id: 20120505024134.GA4666@linux1
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting: Tuesday 8th May 2012, 19:00 UTC by Mike Frysinger
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. :-) William

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting: Tuesday 8th May 2012, 19:00 UTC William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>