| 1 |
On 04/27/2012 12:13 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> In my humble opinion, the essential bit missing here, is where both |
| 3 |
> camps respect each other. That is, not to make it impossible for either |
| 4 |
> camp to follow their vision. |
| 5 |
> I've made suggestions for this in the last council meeting. The options |
| 6 |
> we have as Gentoo -- a remarkable flexible and well controllable |
| 7 |
> source-based distribution -- are numerous. We can have special |
| 8 |
> profiles, introduce new USE-flags, etc. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> So far, the discussion has indicated not more than a shift of programs |
| 11 |
> from / to /usr. This, IMO, should be controlled by a profile/use-flag |
| 12 |
> setting. That is, gen_usr_ldscript should NOT go, but rather stay, and |
| 13 |
> just do nothing if the user is following the GnomeOS vision. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Has anybody created an antithetical document to "The Case for the /usr |
| 16 |
Merge"? It could be called "The Case Against the /usr Merge", and it |
| 17 |
would be useful to have such a document in order to justify support of |
| 18 |
the special profiles and USE-flags that you propose. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
There is an obvious demand to provide a way forward for Gentoo's |
| 21 |
installed base of separate-/usr-without-initramfs systems, but using |
| 22 |
your proposed profiles and USE-flags as the way forward seems like |
| 23 |
overkill in comparison to the simple alternatives that exist: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Alternative 1: Don't install /usr on a separate partition |
| 26 |
Alternative 2: Mount /usr early with an initramfs |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
So, if we're going to move forward with your proposed profiles and |
| 29 |
USE-flags, then let's create a document to justify it. |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
Zac |
Archives