1 |
On 2012.04.25 01:20, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:26 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> |
3 |
> wrote: |
4 |
> > Honestly, I agree with you. I am a udev maintainer myself, and the |
5 |
> udev |
6 |
> > maintainers did not bring this issue to council. More than that, no |
7 |
> one, |
8 |
> > that I recall, discussed any ramifications of this vote with any |
9 |
> udev |
10 |
> > maintainers before bringing it to council. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > The ramifications, as I said in my previous email, are not just |
13 |
> udev |
14 |
> > related (see the section in my previous email about the /usr |
15 |
> merge). |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > Once we start implementing the /usr merge, it will not matter |
18 |
> whether |
19 |
> > you use udev or not, you will have to have an initramfs if your |
20 |
> /usr is |
21 |
> > separate. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> I have mixed feelings on this. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> The fact that the ramifications are not just udev-related tends to |
26 |
> point to the fact that this shouldn't simply be up to the udev team. |
27 |
> These are big changes for Gentoo, and there is a great deal of |
28 |
> controversy across the Linux world resulting from them (the |
29 |
> Shuttleworth vs Pottering debate being the latest iteration of this). |
30 |
> Everybody has to live with this stuff, which points to council |
31 |
> involvement. |
32 |
> |
33 |
[snip] |
34 |
> Rich |
35 |
> |
36 |
|
37 |
Council involvement is only useful where there is a choice to be made |
38 |
between alternatives and the proponents of the options can't agree. |
39 |
In the udev case, there is as yet, no viable alternative, so the option |
40 |
is take it or leave it. |
41 |
|
42 |
Gentoo may wish to support separate /usr without an initrd but until |
43 |
the code base allows it, there is nothing for the council to vote on. |
44 |
-- |
45 |
Regards, |
46 |
|
47 |
Roy Bamford |
48 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
49 |
elections |
50 |
gentoo-ops |
51 |
forum-mods |
52 |
trustees |