On 03/20/2012 04:23 AM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon wrote:
> On 20/03/12 06:48, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time
>> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda
>> to discuss or vote on.
>
> Newer udev (180+) is attempting to force /usr to be mounted *very* early
> in the boot sequence. No other software has this requirement, and it is
> going to break LVM2 users that have a separate /usr. Our official
> documentation recommends this, even today:
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/lvm2.xml
>
> Now that it is unmasked and unleashed on ~arch users, this might result
> in an attempt to stable it. I would like for the council to decide on
> whether a separate /usr is still a supported configuration.

To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr 
_without_ mounting it early via an initramfs.

> If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and alternatives should be
> investigated.

A possible compromise would be to use pkg_pretend to check if /usr is a 
mount point, and die if the user hasn't set a variable or a USE flag to 
indicate awareness that /usr must be mounted early.

> If it isn't, a lot of documentation will have to be
> updated. (And an alternative should likely still be provided)
-- 
Thanks,
Zac